Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Selby) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South East Essex Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Tynemouth) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bridlington) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Guildford) Bill [Lords]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rhymney Valley Sewerage District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage District) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Ilford Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information regarding the fortification by German experts of the coastline adjacent to Gibraltar and the mounting of guns commanding that fortress?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs answered a similar question by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Kirkcaldy District of Burghs (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday.

Mr. Cocks: Do these guns include 16 inch Krupp guns and 12 inch howitzers, and is it not a fact that we have always enjoyed a friendly understanding with the Spanish Government that these heights facing Gibraltar should not be fortified?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That may or may not be the case.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that he is responsible for the technical side, and that the Foreign Office


knows nothing about that side? He has been asked a plain question: Is Gibraltar outgunned and able to be destroyed by those guns? Will he give a plain answer to that?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is the question on the Paper, as I realise perfectly well, but it happens to be a question which was answered yesterday, to which answer I referred the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: I heard the answer yesterday, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, no technical information was given yesterday. He is asked because he is responsible. will he answer?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The question was specifically answered yesterday, and all the information in the possession of the Government was given.

Mr. Benn: Then we are to take it that there is no information in the possession of the War Office relative to those guns save what was given to the House yesterday in the answer of the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Kennedy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question yesterday was not answered? I put a specific question as to whether an assurance was given by Germany in regard to this matter, and whether that assurance was accepted by the British Government contingent on Franco's victory in the Spanish war. That question was not answered.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the House wishes to prolong this matter, it will find that what I have said is correct. The answer which was given yesterday is that General Franco has installed batteries on the coast beween Algeciras and Tarifa.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether consideration was given at the Imperial Conference to the effect on Empire communication of German-Italian control of Spain, including submarine bases and aerodromes; and whether any representations have been received on the subject from Dominion Governments?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Mander: In view of the vital importance to the Dominions of keeping

the communications with the Mediterranean open, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was not thought worth while to give the matter any consideration?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that the Dominions are quite capable themselves of raising matters which it will be relevant for them to raise.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that at the Imperial Conference they took no cognisance of the fact that the fortress of Gibraltar is now dominated by German guns?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not the fact that there is no evidence whatever of any such suggestion as that indicated in the question?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the recent declaration of the Foreign Secretary, that this country has interests in regard to the territorial and political integrity of Spain which cannot be disregarded, was made as a result of consultation with the Dominion authorities at the Imperial Conference, and represents the view not of this country alone, but of the Dominions as well?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another question, and it is obvious that I cannot answer it without having notice of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the activities of the recruiting staff at agricultural shows and markets; and whether, in view of the need for the maintenance of food supplies in time of war and of the consequent need for labour on the land, he will cause this field for Army recruitment not to be so closely exploited?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I see no reason to restrict the activities of the recruiting authorities.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING:

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the desirability of encouraging recruiting and of the work already done by the Army vocational training centres,


he will reconsider the decision to close them, and to transfer the training of men approaching the termination of their Army engagement to the centres of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The purpose of the decision referred to by my hon. Friend, and announced in connection with Army Estimates, is to enable all soldiers on leaving the Army to receive vocational training, if they wish to, instead of confining it to the limited numbers who can now receive such training in Army vocational training centres.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Ministry of Labour training centres an old soldier with seven years' service receives no preference over an unemployed man who has not served his country, and that this is disappointing, and does not help recruiting?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This is the first question of the kind that has been addressed to me since I became Secretary of State for War, but when my predecessor announced his decision it was extremely well received in the House.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that during the War there were thousands of miners who could not go though they wanted to go? Are they to be marked out because of these chaps?

Mr. Gallacher: Would there be any Army if there were not men in the workshops to keep the Army going?

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Labour Ministry's training centres are disliked by soldiers; and will he arrange that the Aldershot, Leeds and Southampton Army vocational centres shall offer to train men leaving the Army and the Navy as chefs and as skilled workers for the catering trades and private houses, to enable them to fill the well-paid permanent situations awaiting them in civilian life?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The training centres at Leeds and Southampton are administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to whose attention I am bringing my hon. Friend's suggestions for extended training facilities. There

are no facilities for training chefs at Aldershot.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the Minister engage the services of Scotland Yard to fill the well-paid jobs in the catering industry?

FUEL SUPPLY.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to have the regimental coal issues made adequate, so that it will not be necessary for all ranks to supplement them from their pay?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The scale of fuel issuable to units and detachments has been increased with effect from 1st June, 1937; I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the relevant Army Order. The scale for officers' and serjeants' messes is at present being considered.

Mr. White: Presumably this will obviate a source of discontent which has existed in the past as indicated in the question?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope so, Sir, but I cannot guarantee that discontent can always be removed, however much one may try.

Mr. White: It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

BEEF SUPPLY.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount of beef consumed by the forces of the Crown for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; what proportion of this came from within the Empire; the quantity that constituted preserved beef and the value of same; and the country from which such beef was purchased?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Some 30,800,000 lbs. of fresh and frozen meat were purchased during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1937, for the Army and the Royal Air Force at home. This was almost wholly of Empire origin. In addition, 1,275,000 lbs. of preserved beef were purchased for delivery during 1936 at an approximate cost of £32,000. This supply was of South American origin, no offer of Empire preserved meat being received.

Mr. Day: Do we understand that no inquiries were made for preserved beef from within the Empire?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I said that no offers at all were received from the Empire. As regards ordinary beef, 90 per cent. came from the Empire.

PENSIONER, GLASGOW.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-Private Thomas Giggle, 56, Orr Street, Glasgow, formerly of the Bedford Regiment, has been awarded a special campaign pension of 2s. per week after 16½ years of service in the Army after 12 months of correspondence and investigation by the War Office; and whether he will take the necessary steps to see that this man is granted an adequate pension?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Mr. Giggle was sent an application form on 31st July, 1936, and did not supply all the particulars required till 7th June, 1937. His service does not entitle him to an ordinary Service pension.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is a disgraceful pension to give a man, after all his service, and will he take steps to see that the man is decently treated?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The man had given 13 years' ordinary military service and the proper period for pension is 21 years. On compassionate grounds a special pension was awarded, and he will be entitled to as much as 10s. per week if his means justify it. He is not entitled to an ordinary Service pension, as his service does not justify it.

Mr. Stephen: The man is drawing unemployment benefit; is it not obvious that he should be drawing the maximum amount of 10s. per week? There is not much compassion about two bob.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand that he has income from other sources of 18s. per week. He has no entitlement to a pension, and we provided him with a special allowance.

Mr. Neil MacLean: Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending this soldier to the Ministry of Labour for special treatment for jobs?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHERMEN (EMIGRATION).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he

encourages emigration of fishermen and others from the Western Isles to Canada or elsewhere; and whether there are no means of providing employment for the fishermen in our own fishing industry?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The question whether the emigration of fishermen to Canada or elsewhere should be encouraged has not yet come before me on any concrete proposal. As regards the last part of the question, the provision of employment in our own fishing industry depends essentially on the restoration of prosperity to that industry, and the Government are giving constant attention to that difficult problem.

Mr. MacMillan: Before the right hon. Gentleman gives consideration to the fishing or any other industry in Canada, will he consider first the problem of finding employment for these men in their own fishing industry, which is in a deplorable state?

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly do so.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless something is done to expedite measures for the reorganisation of the fishing industry, thousands of trawl fishermen will be added to the burden of the Unemployment Fund?

Mr. Elliot: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to the Western Isles, but to the Aberdeen area.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many married persons and unmarried persons, respectively, were in receipt of old age pensions in Scotland as at 1st January, 1937, and how many of each class were in receipt of public relief as at that date; and whether he has any statement to make regarding the steps, if any, the Government propose to take in order to make the old age pension adequate and thus avoid the clerical expense involved in double applications and administrative charges and, at the same time, safeguard the dignity of the old age pensioners?

Mr. Elliot: The total number of persons in receipt of old age pensions in Scotland at 1st January, 1937, was 264,966, and the number of such pensioners who were


also in receipt of poor relief at 15th May, 1936, the latest date for which figures are at present available, was 37,020. I regret that information as to the numbers of married and unmarried pensioners is not available. I have no statement to make in regard to the last part of the question.

Mr. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, in relation to the subject-matter of this question, the increase in the number of aged persons received into mental institutions in Scotland in recent years?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that that does not arise out of this question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend an increase in old age pensions, in order to obviate this necessity?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of widows in the county of Linlithgow who are in receipt of old age pensions and who have had their means augmented by public assistance?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. Mathers: Has not the same informaation been given with regard to other counties; and what prevents it being given in the case of West Lothian?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think it has been given with respect to other counties. I could give any information that has been given with respect to other counties, but my information is that this special information is not available.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the Minister of Health last week gave exactly the same figures to me with regard to the West Riding County Council?

Mr. Davidson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman make some effort to obtain this information, which is asked for in reference to one particular area only?

Mr. Elliot: I could not ask for the information with regard to a particular area; it would need to be given for all areas.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in the county of Linlithgow who are in

receipt of old age pensions and who have their means augmented from public assistance funds?

Mr. Elliot: The number of persons in the county of West Lothian in receipt of old age pensions who had their means augmented from public assistance funds at 15th May, 1937, was 827.

Mr. Mathers: Do not these figures in the county of Linlithgow and in other counties in Scotland encourage the right hon. Gentleman to press upon the Government the desirability of making such an augmentation from Poor Law funds unnecessary?

Mr. Elliot: I gave the answer to that question in replying to a previous question.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if Linlithgow were even more generous to the old people, the number would be decreased?

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of old age pensioners receiving extra relief from local authorities in Scotland for the years 1933 and 1936, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The number of old age pensioners in receipt of poor relief at 15th May, 1933, was 27,786, and at 15th May, 1936, 37,020.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this continued increase of old age pensioners receiving Poor Law relief in Glasgow, and why are the Government refusing to old age pensioners some benefit in their alleged new prosperity?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Does that figure include old people in institutions receiving not only financial assistance but also care?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (UNIVERSITIES).

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that an instruction has been given to the presiding officers at the next Scottish Universities Parliamentary Election to prevent Parliamentary Agents from finding out how individual electors recorded their votes; whether he can state the name


of the individual issuing the said instruction; whether he has in view the statutory method of postal voting at such elections and the statutory rights of candidates and their agents to be present and object to the validity of any voting paper; what action he proposes to take in regard to such instruction; and whether the Government have any proposals to make regarding the university Parliamentary franchise?

Mr. Elliot: I am not aware that any such instruction has been issued. I understand, however, that, at a recent meeting of the General Council of St. Andrews University, the Vice-Chancellor said that, if he had occasion to act as presiding officer at a Parliamentary Election, he would ask the agents of candidates present at the opening of the voting papers to refrain from making a written record of how individual electors recorded their votes. No action on my part appears to be called for, and I have no proposals to make regarding the university franchise.

Mr. Gibson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that at that meeting the Principal of St. Andrews University made the statement that he had in fact received such an instruction? Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated that matter?

Mr. Elliot: I shall certainly do so. I was not aware of the issue of any such instruction.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a writ of summons was issued by four milk producers and was served on the Scottish Milk Marketing Board on 15th June, and that the said summons craves for the production of the minutes or other documents of the board by which they authorise themselves to make the levies now found to be illegal by the decision of the House of Lords, and for repayment of the moneys which were demanded and received in terms of such minutes; and when was he made aware of the service on the board of such summons?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, I was informed on 30th June that such a summons had been served on the board.

Mr. Macquisten: Why did not the Secretary of State tell the House of the action when he introduced the new Milk Marketing Scheme, which provides for a levy upon these very people to provide the money to recompense themselves? It might have had an important effect on the voting. Does he consider that it was right not to disclose such a very important fact to the House?

Mr. Elliot: I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend, who is learned in the law, should suggest that I should make any comment on a matter which is sub judice.

Mr. Macquisten: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it was his duty to tell the House that the action was served, and not introduce a Measure to alter something which was sub judice?

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the terms of a letter signed by D. Sinclair Hay, p. manager and secretary of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, dated 23rd October, 1934, and addressed to P. McCluskey, Fairfield House, Dalkeith, wherein it is set forth that the Court of Session, in a special case submitted to them, decided that the board's method of assessing contributions was legal, but that if any superior court revised this decision, and held the method of assessment to be illegal, the board would refund any excess paid to all milk producers; and why has it not been implemented in terms of the Ferrier decision?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the letter referred to. After the House of Lords' Judgment had been issued, however, the board were advised that the terms of the judgment did not warrant the payment of compensation to those producers who had paid their contributions without reserving a right to retrospective adjustment; and the board were thereby precluded from making such payments except in those circumstances. Undertakings given to individuals whose rights were reserved, have been or will be implemented.

Mr. Macquisten: Then I may take it that the Secretary of State has consulted his legal advisers, and they have told him to be dishonest in this matter and not refund the money? Is he not satisfied


that, when he loses the action for reduction of the board's minutes referred to in Question No. 14, it will then become a question of fact, and not of law, and all the funds must then be refunded? Is that why he brought in his new scheme to stop it?

Mr. Elliot: As I specifically announced in the House, the Amendments had nothing to do with any legal rights enjoyed by any individual. All these were specifically reserved, and I informed the House to that effect.

Mr. Macquisten: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment. These answers are too unsatisfactory.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received any report of the inquiry, held some months ago at the instance of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland by Mr. Mackintosh, K.C., into proposed amendments to the milk marketing scheme; whether it is intended to publish this report and, if so, when; and whether milk producers who lodged objections to any of the proposed amendments will receive notification of the Commissioner's decisions?

Mr. Elliot: I received Mr. Mackintosh's report on 22nd February last. The report is confidential, and, following the usual practice, it is not intended to publish it.

Mr. Johnston: Since objections were invited, were not the objectors informed of the result of the hearing by Mr. Mackintosh of their objections?

Mr. Elliot: The objectors were informed of the decision of the Minister in the statement of the Minister to this House. There can be no division of responsibility.

Mr. Johnston: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? He invites objectors to state their objections, and their objections are heard by his officer. Surely it would at least be courteous to inform the objectors of the result of the hearing?

Mr. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the Agricultural Marketing Act, and he will remember that the Amendments are the responsibility of the Minister in this House.

Mr. Macquisten: Why do we not get the report? Does the report justify the amendments?

DEPOPULATION.

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the drift of population from the isles of Coll, Tiree, Islay, Jura, Gigha, and Mull to the mainland; and what is the estimated loss of population of each of such isles in the last five years?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that successive Censuses show a reduction in the permanent population of the islands mentioned in the question. I regret that there are no available statistics on which the estimate requested in the last part of the question could be based.

Viscountess Astor: Is the emigration from these islands any greater than the emigration from agricultural districts throughout the world at the present time? Is it not the case that one of the great problems to-day is to get people to stay on the land?

Mr. Elliot: I think it is a little greater. The islands are outside the area of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not one of the reasons the fact that transport is very expensive?

Mr. Mathers: Does not the decline in the human population coincide with a rise in the deer population?

Mr. Elliot: That does not apply in the small islands of the sea.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Island of Iona is not included in the list? Is there any reason for that?

BUCKHAVEN HARBOUR.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the refuse from the burning bing at Buckhaven, swept down by the tide, has now completely blocked the harbour so that no fishing-boats can get out or in; and will he take steps to restore the harbour and dispose of the burning bing?

Mr. Elliot: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The very limited fishery interest would not,


I fear, justify the expenditure required to restore and maintain the harbour, but an inspection made by a technical officer of the Department of Health for Scotland last month showed that the colliery company's efforts to control the fires in the bing have had considerable success.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the redd from this bing now forms a huge barrier across the mouth of the harbour, so that nothing can get in or out of the harbour, and you can now walk dry-shod across what was the deepest part of the harbour? Is he going to do anything to stop the alarming injury that is being done by this obstruction?

Mr. Elliot: On the wider question of dealing with the bing on the foreshore, communications with the company are in progress, and I hope that some scheme will soon be received as the basis of consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not dealing with the foreshore. The bing on the foreshore is from 8 to 12 feet deep, but the bing in the harbour, which forms a huge barrier, is over 20 feet deep. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything about that.

Mr. Elliot: I think that that is covered by my reply.

HOUSING.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a unanimous decision was passed by the Fife County Council in favour of a conference in Edinburgh of Scottish Members of Parliament and representatives of burgh and county councils to consider the serious problem of housing; and will he give further consideration to this proposal?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the Fife County Council have not reached any such decision. With regard to the second part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given to the question by the hon. Member on this subject on 29th June.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have been informed on the very best authority that the decision was made and I am quite satisfied that it would be supported by every

other council? Will he therefore not arrange such a conference in view of the serious situation?

Mr. Elliot: I specially rang up the clerk of the County Council of Fife and was told that they had not come to this decision.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in the Gorbals Division which are either condemned as being slums or unfit for human habitation, and the number of houses in which families are overcrowded; and the figures for last year?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the number of houses in the Gorbals Division which are being dealt with under the Housing Acts as unfit for human habitation or are at present on the Corporation's list awaiting such action is 1,773, and that the corresponding number a year ago was 1,799. The latest available information with regard to the number of overcrowded houses in the division was obtained as a result of the overcrowding survey at the end of 1935 when the number was 7,619.

Mr. Buchanan: At this rate of progress, which represents less than 100, can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of overtaking arrears?

Mr. Elliot: The progress is extremely unsatisfactory. We are in constant communication with the local authority as to how it can be expedited.

Mr. Buchanan: Are we to take it that these people are to live there for ever?

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the number of houses now being built by the Corporation of Glasgow; the number which are for slum clearance, the number for overcrowding, and the number of ordinary houses; and how this compares with the same date last year?

Mr. Elliot: As the reply involves a table of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that it is not possible to show separately the numbers of houses being built for slum clearance and for the relief of overcrowding as the Corporation are dealing with these problems together and the purpose for which particular houses are to be used is not determined till the houses are completed.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this Socialist local authority is genuinely endeavouring to overcome the appalling housing conditions existing in their city?

Number of Houses at


Number of Houses being built
30th June, 1936.
30th June, 1937.



Under construction.
Contracted for but not begun.
Under Construction.
contracted for but not begun.


With State Assistance—For Slum Clearance and the relief of Overcrowding.
2,437
1,318
2,637
2,080


Without State Assistance …
250
98
202
—



2,687
1,416
2,839
2,080

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of applications which have been received by the Corporation of Glasgow for houses; the figure on the same date last year; and the number of the same periods from the Gorbals division?

Mr. Elliot: The corporation estimate that the approximate number of live applications in hand for houses was at the end of June, 1936, 61,000; and at the end of June, 1937, 70,000. I regret that I am unable to state how many of the applications were from the Gorbals division.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the tenants of the property at 155, Orr Street, Glasgow, are being threatened with eviction from their homes; whether these houses have been condemned as unfit for human habitation; and whether any steps are being taken to see that the tenants are provided with houses at rents within their capacity to pay?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the houses have not been condemned by the Corporation of Glasgow as unfit for human habitation. I have no information regarding the threatened eviction. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on this subject on 8th July.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are poor people,

Mr. Maclean: Is not the state of housing in Glasgow the work of the Tory majority?

Following is the table:

and will he arrange for their being granted legal assistance to protect them against these notices?

Mr. Elliot: I shall discuss all these questions with the Lord Advocate.

EX-SERVICE MEN (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of ex-service men at present receiving poor law relief in Glasgow?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the importance of recruiting, will the right hon. Gentleman not make some attempt to obtain the figures in order that they can be put side by side with the recruiting posters of the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Elliot: Such figures could be obtained only by interviewing personally thousands of men receiving relief.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be more honest—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not allowed to ask supplementary questions which would not be allowed as questions on the Paper.

JUVENILE COURT, MARYHILL.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of cases dealt with in the Maryhill juvenile court and the number of convictions for the first six months of 1937?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that during the period in question 177 cases involving 292 juveniles were dealt with by the court, and that in 168 of those cases findings of guilt were recorded against 280 juveniles.

Mr. Davidson: Why should there be this large percentage of convictions in one constituency more than in any other?

Mr. Elliot: The figures for the first six months of 1937 compare with 499 for 1935 and 479 for 1936 for the same period, so it is declining.

Viscountess Astor: How many of these children were Scottish and how many Irish?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise.

RELIEF EXPENDITURE (RECOVERY).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the legal entitlement of local authorities in Scotland to recover amounts paid in the form of relief to poor persons from poor persons' parents and other relatives operates harshly in cases where parents, with domestic responsibilities of their own and very small incomes, are held to be legally liable for the maintenance, for instance, of widowed daughters and their children in necessitous circumstances; and whether he will take steps to restrain the action of local authorities seeking to recover weekly sums to meet the cost of relief in such cases?

Mr. Elliot: I am not aware that the powers of local authorities to recover poor relief expenditure from poor persons' parents or other relatives legally bound to maintain them operate harshly or that local authorities seek to recover from parents with very small incomes. The question whether any relative against whom a local authority bring an action for recovery of relief expenditure is able to repay the sum claimed is a matter for the courts to determine and I have no power to intervene.

SURPLUS HERRING CATCHES.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had submitted to him proposals put before the Convention of Burghs in Scotland by the Commissioner for Buckie for a disposal, by agreement with Russian buying agencies, of any surplus catches of herring at a specially reduced price; and, seeing

that this guaranteed outlet would reduce overhead charges of the Scottish herring fleet to such an extent as to restore stability and a measure of prosperity to the industry, whether he will forthwith enter into negotiations with the Russian buying agencies on the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of these proposals which were discussed by representatives of the Convention with members of the Herring Industry Board in November last. The Board, however, did not consider the proposals to be practicable. In particular the prices proposed did not seem to be such as would commend themselves to the industry.

Mr. Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the herring fleet, at least open up negotiations with Russia?

Mr. Elliot: That is a different question: This is whether these proposals discussed at the Convention were considered.

Mr. Johnston: The last sentence of my question specifically asks whether he will forthwith enter into negotiations with the Russian buying agencies.

Mr. Elliot: The Herring Board is the proper agency for entering into negotiations on these matters.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new holdings provided under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts in each of the last five years to the nearest convenient date; and whether he has under consideration methods for increasing such settlement on the land?

Mr. Elliot: As the answer to the first part of the question involves a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the last part of the question, the Government will continue to proceed with land settlement as opportunities offer and suitable lands become available.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the fact that so little is taking place in this regard—I know that without the figures—will not the right hon. Gentleman consult his technical staff with a view to expediting such settlement?

Mr. M. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 4,000 people have been waiting for years in the Western Isles and that there are millions of acres unused except for his pleasure and that of his hon. and right hon. Friends?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member would be very disappointed if I entered upon a discussion of this matter at Question Time.

Following are the figures:

The number of applicants provided with holdings and enlargements under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts in each of the five years to December, 1936, is as follows:


Year.
Holdings.
Enlargements.


1932
…
…
132
7


1933
…
…
76
17


1934
…
…
61
33


1935
…
…
132
5


1936
…
…
81
12

RENT ARREARS, GLASGOW.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Lord Advocate the number of cases which have been before the Sheriff Court in Glasgow in each of the past four years in which the summonses were issued for arrears of house-rent for less than £1, less than £2, and less than £3, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that the particulars asked for are not available as the records of the sums sued for do not show rent cases separately. It is estimated that the majority of the actions in the small debt court for arrears of rent relate to sums under £5, that the average of such sums is £3 and that cases of less than £1 are very rare.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that decisions and settlements are recorded in the court register when arrived at between sheriff, factor and tenant, and, if they are not, why is this? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make that inquiry, because a large number of cases have come to my knowledge of sums under £1 for which tenants are being sued?

Mr. Elliot: What the hon. Member is asking for is the record of the settlements arrived at. His question is down for the sums sued for.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that several house factors are summoning to the Glasgow sheriff courts tenants who are

only a few shillings in arrear with their monthly rent, and the legal costs which are added are sometimes equal to the amount of arrears; and whether, in view of the congestion in the sheriff courts, he will take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to alter this practice?

Mr. Elliot: On the information available to me, it does not appear that there is any practice of the nature suggested in the first part of the question or any consequent congestion of business in the sheriff small debt or ejection courts in Glasgow. If the hon. Member has any further information on the subject, I shall, however, be glad to look into it.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that every day one of the courts of the sheriff in county buildings in. Glasgow has to be set aside for the hearing of cases of arrears of rent; and will the Secretary of State for Scotland take some interest in what is going on in the city, part of which he himself represents?

Mr. Elliot: Already I have offered, if the hon. Member has any information, to discuss it with him.

Mr. Maclean: I will give the right hon. Member some from Kelvingrove.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERTIME.

Mr. Charles Brown: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he intends to have any further investigation made into the working of overtime in coal mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 28th June, of which I am sending him a copy. In answer to a supplementary question by the same hon. Member, I indicated that I was prepared to have further special investigation made when I had reason to think that there was sufficient cause for it, but that at present I had no such reason.

Mr. Brown: Can the Secretary for Mines state whether the special inspectors he appointed some time ago to watch this matter have solely confined their attentions to Lancashire and Scotland, or have they been asked to make investigations elsewhere?

Captain Crookshank: That is another question which I answered the other day also.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is not the Secretary for Mines aware that the inspector of mines for Yorkshire stated 12 months ago that 25 per cent. of the books on overtime were incorrect? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know about that?

LONGWALL FACES (GATEWAYS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that many long wall faces worked by coal cutters are over 100 yards in length, and that no outlets are provided other than the openings at each end of the face; and will he instruct his inspectors to examine such faces to see if it would be safer to have more outlets?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the facts in relation to such outlets, but I am advised that the limitation of the number of gateways on longwall faces tends to ensure greater safety from falls of ground, since a large proportion of the accidents from falls of roof at the face occur at and about gate-ends. As regards the second part, the matter has already been closely studied by His Majesty's inspectors, and it has been raised in evidence at the Royal Commission. I do not think that any specific instructions to His Majesty's inspectors are called for at present.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Secretary for Mines ask the inspector to have a talk with the workmen on these cases in order to see what their opinion is about more outlets, and I venture to say that he will be advised to have further safety outlets?

Captain Crookshank: Of course, all matters of safety are always considered by the inspectors.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the same time ask his inspectors what effect less speeding up would have on the accident rates?

AUTOMATIC ALARMS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Foot Committee have yet submitted any report on automatic alarms; and, if so, whether such report will be made public?

Captain Crookshank: No report has yet been submitted to me.

Mr. Williams: When does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect the report of this committee?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot say, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our best to hurry it up.

Mr. Williams: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether we are likely to have the report before the House adjourns at the end of July?

EXPLOSIONS (INVESTIGATION).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the investigation undertaken by his officers into the comparative freedom of the French coal mines from explosions has been completed; whether he can indicate what conclusions the investigators have reached; and whether he intends to publish their report?

Captain Crookshank: The investigation has been completed and a report now in preparation will be submitted to me shortly. I will then seek the concurrence of the French Government to the publication of the report; meantime the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate its findings.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman making arrangements for that report to be submitted to members of the Royal Commission, who are now preparing their report?

Captain Crookshank: Oh, yes, Sir, they are sure to have a copy of it.

ELECTRICAL MACHINERY (INSPECTION).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines what was the tonnage of coal cut by electrically-driven coal-cutting machines in 1928 and the number of separate ignitions that took place in that year, and the comparative figures for 1936; and the number of His Majesty's inspectors of mines specially charged with the inspection of electrical apparatus in the mines in 1928 and 1937, respectively?

Captain Crookshank: The tonnage of coal cut by electrically-driven coal-cutting machines was, in round figures, 40,500,000 tons in 1928 and 89,750,000 tons in 1936. The number of separate ignitions of firedamp from all causes, which involved death or injury during the same two years was 48 and 40. There was one electrical inspector of mines in 1928, and there are now five.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it intended that any of the 16 new inspectors, the appointment of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman announced last week, shall be specially appointed for this purpose in view of this increase of electrical machinery in the pits?

Captain Crookshank: I do not know that I have quite decided upon their functions. I cannot answer that question to-day.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether some of these 16 inspectors should not specially be appointed for this task?

Captain Crookshank: Of course, the general object of this inspectorate is to increase the inspectors in the night shifts, and I will consider whether that will fall in with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not the fact that most of this electrical coal-cutting machinery is used on the night shift and, therefore, what I am suggesting will fit in with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says are his functions?

HARWORTH COLLIERY (RE-ENGAGED WORKERS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary for Mines how many of the 350 men selected by lot under the terms of settlement of the Harworth trade dispute have been re-engaged by the Harworth Colliery Company since 29th May last?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed by Messrs. Barber Walker and Company that the answer is 144.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that there is some local complaint among the men who ought to have been started that the agreement is not being observed by the owners either in the spirit or the letter; and will he use his good offices in those cases which I am able to bring to his notice?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Mr. Bellenger: Will he use his good offices, if I am able to bring cases to his attention?

Captain Crookshank: I had better wait and see what the cases are before making any promise about them.

CADEBY MAIN ACCIDENT (RELIEF FUNDS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, although the funds collected for the dependants of those who were killed in the Cadeby Main disaster of 1912 are exhausted, there are still many widows left for whom no provision is made; and whether he will consult the trustees of other disaster funds with a view to making provision for these women?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the facts as stated by the hon. Member, though I would remind him that the exhaustion of this fund was definitely contemplated by the committee originally responsible for its administration. With regard to the second half of the question, although the administration of these funds is not a matter over which I have any control, I will see whether it is possible to secure assistance from other funds if this should prove to be necessary.

Mr. Williams: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that there are 16 widows who have been widows now for a quarter of a century for whom no provision is made, while at the same time there are similar disaster funds that are locked up where no dependants are left?

SUBSIDENCE (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will seek powers to enforce payment of compensation for damages upon housing and other properties when a colliery company goes into liquidation, and in cases of change of ownership arising therefrom?

Captain Crookshank: I am not quite clear as to the hon. Member's meaning. The existence of a right to compensation for subsidence damage to surface property depends upon the terms on which the minerals concerned are being worked. If the hon. Member is suggesting that when a colliery goes into liquidation a person claiming such compensation should be given some additional preferential right over ordinary creditors, I am afraid that the proposal is not likely to commend itself to Parliament.

Mr. Adamson: Is the Minister aware that, apart from private individuals owning property, the local urban and rural


district councils are complaining considerably of the position arising out of the liquidation of these companies?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, whether they are private individuals or public corporations, what I have said in my reply still applies.

Mr. Tinker: Could not any portion of the royalty subsidy be set aside for this purpose?

CANADA (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many British and foreign emigrants, respectively, have entered Canada during the two years ended May, 1937; and whether any negotiations are at present taking place between His Majesty's Government and the Canadian Government with a view to facilitating the settlement of British subjects in the Dominion of Canada?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The latest available statement issued by the Canadian authorities as to immigration to Canada by nationalities relates to the year ending 31st March, 1936. In that year 11,103 immigrants arrived in Canada, of whom 2,973 were British subjects, 4,338 were citizens of the United States of America, and 3,792 of other nationalities. As regards the second part of the question, some discussion took place at the time of the Imperial Conference with the Canadian Minister concerned, from which it appeared that the Canadian Government feel that the time has not yet arrived when they could co-operate in the resumption of assisted migration to Canada from this country.

Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to all those hon. Members who want a discussion on migration what has taken place between this country and the Dominions, and the impossibility of any scheme of migration being established?

Sir H. Croft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three of the Provinces of Canada have definitely stated through their Governments that they are ready to reconsider the question of migration?

Mr. MacDonald: The Government with which we have to deal in this matter is the Government of the Dominion. In

answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), I am sure that those who are interested in this question, as many hon. Members are, will follow very closely the answer that I have given to this question.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of foreigners or naturalised foreigners have entered Canada recently?

Mr. MacDonald: The figures for the year following that which I have given seem to be very similar. There is a slight increase in most categories in those given for 1937, but they are figures relating only to the origin of the immigrants. There is a slight variation between those figures and the figures which describe accurately the nationality of the immigrants.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the recent announcement of General Hertzog in reference to the British-African protectorates; and whether he will make a statement?

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he is aware of the announcement by the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa on 6th July in which General Hertzog stated that, unless the British Government took steps to transfer the native Protectorates of Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland to the Union Government, he would appeal to the King in Council; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter referred to;
(2) whether he is aware of the statement by General Hertzog at Capetown, on 6th July, that the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. J. H. Thomas, in 1935 gave General Hertzog a written assurance, which was later made public, that the transfer of the Protectorates, or at least one or two of the territories concerned, would probably take place in a few years; whether any such assurance was given; and, if so, was it given with the authority of the Government?

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he


was consulted by General Hertzog as to the statement which he proposed to make on his return to South Africa on the subject of the Protectorates?

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs whether he accepts the view expressed in the recent speech of General Hertzog that it is the duty of Great Britain to see to it that everything be done to advance the transfer of the Protectorates?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether the pledge to the Native populations of the South African Protectorates that they will be consulted before transfer to the Union of South Africa implies that should they express themselves as hostile to transfer it will not take place; and whether his recent conversations with General Hertzog in London on this question were embodied in a memorandum and agreed by General Hertzog;
(2) whether he has studied recent pronouncements by members of the Government of the Union of South Africa on the subject of treatment of natives in South Africa, and also recent legislation by the same Government on this subject; and, where such legislation and pronouncements do not accord with the British Government's principle of trusteeship for native races, will such discrepancies be taken into account when considering the question of transfer of the South African Protectorates?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make respecting the recent statements of General Hertzog and the relationship of the Union of South Africa to Great Britain?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I was not consulted by General Hertzog as to the statements regarding the High Commission Territories which he made on his return to South Africa, nor were my conversations with him when he was in London embodied in an agreed memorandum. The arrangement was, as I explained in reply to questions last Friday, that I should communicate with him on his return concerning the general position and as to possible further practical steps for carrying out the policy agreed upon in 1935.
With regard to the reference to the Native legislation recently passed in the Union of South Africa, it would not, of course, be proper for me to discuss Native policy in the Union. So far as the High Commission Territories are concerned, I would remind the House that the conditions on which it was contemplated that transfer could be effected are laid down in the Schedule to the South Africa Act, 1909. I have no reason to think that the Union Government would not be ready to maintain the general scheme of the Schedule.
The other points raised in the questions are covered by the replies which I gave in the House last Friday, and I have no further general statement to make.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the urgency of this matter. may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has communicated with the Union Government of South Africa with regard to the complaint of General Hertzog at the beginning of last week, and, if so, has any reply been received?

Mr. MacDonald: I made a statement in regard to General Hertzog's interview with the Press on Friday, and that statement was communicated as soon as possible to the people in South Africa. With regard to future policy, the communication which I promised to send to General Hertzog is being prepared at the present moment and will he sent as soon as possible.

Mr. Lunn: In view of the fact that the Dominion Premiers were here for a very long time during this year, would it not have been better that this matter should have been discussed with General Hertzog when he w as in this country rather than leave him to make such a statement when he got back to South Africa?

Mr. MacDonald: I made it clear in my statement that I had a long conversation with General Hertzog when he was in this country.

Mr. Maxton: Why did you not make the position clear?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the discrepancy between his own statement that consultation with the natives is required before transfer, and


the statement of the Government spokesman in another place that the acquiescence of the natives is necessary before transfer can take place? Will he state which of these two Government statements is authoritative, namely, that consultation only is necessary, which does not involve the consent of the natives, or that acquiescence is necessary, which does involve the consent of the natives?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. and gallant Member will study the records of the discussion in the House of Lords I think he will find that there is no discrepancy between what was said in that place and what was said here. His Majesty's Government stand by the pledges regarding consultation with the natives and the Europeans in the Territories, which have often been repeated in this House.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the Government spokesman in another place directly said that acquiescence was necessary?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go into that. The Minister in this House has given the answer to the question.

PALESTINE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister when the House of Commons will have an opportunity of de-bating the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Discussions are now taking place through the usual channels with a view to arranging for a debate on the report of the Palestine Commission before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Adams: Will the Government's eventual proposals be submitted to Parliament, or will the Executive exercise their treaty-making prerogative?

The Prime Minister: It is clear that the Government's proposals will have to be debated by the House.

Mr. Adams: Will they be submitted to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I do not know exactly what the hon. Member means by "submitted to Parliament." If they

are being debated by Parliament, that is being submitted to Parliament.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister say whether he proposes to give a day on which the House can discuss the proposal and pass their opinions on it? This is not a question that merely arises on a Supply Day.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that discussions are proceeding through the usual channels, and, in those circumstances, I think it would be better that I should not say anything further until we know what takes place.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PENSIONS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate the claim of civil servants who are transferred from temporary to permanent positions that allowance should be made for their years of temporary service for pensionable purposes?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 8th July to the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Kirby) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When the right hon. Gentleman is making up his mind on this question, will he take into account the fact that since the last investigation was made into the Civil Service outside employers have very considerably advanced in the matter of pensions for their employés, and that this has a very direct bearing on conditions inside the Civil Service?

Sir J. Simon: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. R. Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall know the Government's decision with regard to the setting up of an inquiry? Will it be this Session?

Sir J. Simon: I think that is very unlikely. What I said in the answer the other day was that the matter had been recently examined, and the question


whether further inquiry would serve a useful purpose would receive consideration. That is being done.

Mr. Acland: Are we likely to get the result of that consideration this Session?

PROVIDENT SCHEMES (UNESTABLISHED MESSENGERS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to consider applying the national savings provident schemes, referred to in brochures N.S. 54 and N.S. 62, 1936, issued by the National Savings Committee, to unestablished Government messengers?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Benefits for unestablished messengers are already provided under an existing system of gratuities on a statutory basis and it would not be appropriate for the Government to apply purely ex gratia schemes of this character to its employés.

GOLD RESERVES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the 100,000,000 ounces of gold in the Exchange Equalisation Account and Issue Department of the Bank of England on 31st March last, whether he is able to give the comparable quantities held in the United States of America?

Sir J. Simon: The gold reserves of the United States of America on 31st March last amounted to about 331,000,000 fine ounces, of which about120,000,000 ounces represented the net addition since September, 1931.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor. of the Exchequer whether he will let the House know when the gold held by the Exchange Fund and in the Issue Department of the Bank of England exceeds 150,000,000 ounces?

Sir J. Simon: As indicated in the statement which I made on 28th June in the Debate on the Exchange Equalisation Account Money Resolution, I am proposing that our gold holdings should in future he made public, three months in arrear, on two occasions in the year. I am not prepared to vary this arrangement.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand that the Treasury or the Exchange Equalisation Fund can buy gold up to more than 120,000,000 ounces, without the public and this House knowing anything about it?

Sir J. Simon: The authority has been given by the Act of Parliament as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, but I think the information I propose to give is well understood and generally accepted.

Colonel Wedgwood: What I want to know is whether there is no upper limit to the amount that can be bought?

OLD AGE, ETC., PENSIONS.

Mr. Batey: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, to provide that when a man 65 years of age receives an old age pension his wife may also be allowed a pension irrespective of her age?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 27th May last to the hon. Members for the Springburn Division of Glasgow (Mr. Hardie) and Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie).

Mr. Batey: Will the Financial Secretary answer my question? Will he consider introducing legislation to remedy this serious defect?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If the hon. Member will look at the previous answer he will see that it was fully considered, and that I was unable to promise such legislation.

Mr. Batey: But has not the time come when legislation ought to be introduced on this matter?

Mr. Batey: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions Act to provide for the removal of the 104 stamps qualification for a widow's pension and to substitute that the husband had been engaged in an insurable trade?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I do not think it would be practicable to administer a


contributory scheme of insurance without reference to the contributions actually paid.

Mr. Batey: Will the Financial Secretary set up some committee to investigate this question, seeing that there is so much hardship on widows at the moment?

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that from day to day Members are pressing for an investigation into the problem of old age pensions and other pensions, will the House have an opportunity of debating the matter before it rises for the Recess?

Mr. Batey: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: I have never known Questions go so slowly.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Commissioners in Newfoundland take important decisions as individuals or whether the principle of collective reponsibility operates in all matters of general policy in the administration of that Dominion; what steps are taken by the Commissioners to consult local opinion; and if he will now consider whether the time has arrived for a return to the principle of representative government in Newfoundland?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, the principle of collective responsibility applies and is fully recognised. As regards the second part, it is the aim of the Commissioners to make use of every opportunity for keeping themselves informed of local opinion. Close touch is maintained, for example, with labour, trade and charitable organisations; conferences are held on particular subjects as occasion requires; and in matters of legislation the practice has been adopted of publishing the text of proposed Bills and inviting comments and suggestions. In addition, the Commissioners, in their tours through the Island, are brought into personal contact with all classes of the community. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 16th March to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), in the course of which I explained that it would be premature to consider any change at present.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that important decisions in regard to general policy are taken by individual commissioners without reference to the general body of Commissioners, and is he also aware of the feeling in the island at their inability to express themselves in the affairs of government?

Mr. MacDonald: In regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware of the state of affairs which the hon. Member has described, and which is in direct contradiction to what I have said in answer to his question. In regard to the second part, I am, of course, aware of the trend of opinion in the island. There is undoubtedly disappointment that recovery is so slow, but the conditions in the island were so grave when the Commissioners took over that rapid recovery was not to be expected and, as I have indicated, the Commissioners are endeavouring in every way possible to keep in touch with local opinion in the work they are doing.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman take action if I bring to his notice instances where individual decisions have been taken without reference to the full body of the Commission?

Mr. MacDonald: I shall be glad to consider any matter which the hon. Member may bring to my notice.

Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have a report on the position of the island to-day?

Mr. MacDonald: A report was published fairly recently, and another report is not due until the close of the current year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with regard to business on Wednesday and Thursday of this week?

The Prime Minister: As far as the business for the remainder of the week is concerned, in addition to taking the Report stage of the Finance Bill, we shall take to-morrow the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill.
On Thursday we shall conclude the Report stage of the Finance Bill and afterwards take the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill.


There is no alteration of the business for Friday, which is the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night in order to get the first six Orders.

Mr. Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture is considering an Amendment on the Report stage of the Agriculture Bill dealing with the Privileges of the Commons. Will it

be possible for a Law Officer to be present so that the matter may be debated with proper authority?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 108.

Division No. 280.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Crooke, J. S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cross, R. H.
Hepworth, J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crossley, A. C.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Albery, Sir Irving
Crowder, J. F. E.
Higgs, W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Apsley, Lord
Culverwell, C. T.
Holdsworth, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Assheton, R.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sulton)
Dawson, Sir P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
De Chair, S. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
De la Bère, R.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Denville, Alfred
Hulbert, N. J.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Doland, G. F.
Hunter, T.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Donner, P. W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Drewe, C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bernays, R. H.
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Eastwood, J. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Blaker, Sir R.
Elmley, Viscount
Leigh, Sir J.


Bossom, A. C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Levy, T.


Brass, Sir W.
Errington, E.
Lewis, O.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lindsay, K. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Everard, W. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Bull, B. B.
Foot, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Furness, S. N.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Burton, Col. H. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Butcher, H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Goldie, N. B.
McEwen, Cap[...]. J. H. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
McKie, J. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Magnay, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Granville, E. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Channon, H.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Marsden, Commander A.


Christie, J. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Morgan, R. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Harbord, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Munro, P.


Cox, H. B. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nall, Sir J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Critchley, A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh




Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Marquess of


Palmer, G. E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Peake, O.
Salt, E. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peat, C. U.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermendsey)
Wakefield, W. W.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Petherick, M.
Savery, Sir Servington
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Selley, H. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Watt, G. S. H.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Procter, Major H. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sutcliffe, H.



Rosbotham, Sir T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis C.
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-


Rowlands, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Batey, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton. T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burke, W. A.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir G. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff. G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Second Report from the Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, without Amendment,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tonbridge Water) Bill, with an Amendment.

Amendments to—

Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill [Lords],

Eastbourne Extension Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TONBRIDGE WATER) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

PROCEDURE RELATING TO MONEY RESOLUTIONS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNER SHIP) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

3.56 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill may be briefly stated in one sentence. It is a Bill to establish a register of coal properties, details of which will be submitted by the owners, who will, with certain conditions, be repaid the expenses that they incur in doing so. However, I do not think the House will be satisfied with that bald and uninteresting summary, but will wish me to go a little further into the question, first, as to why such a Bill is being introduced, and, secondly, if there is to be a register, what is the procedure for making applications? This is certainly neither the time nor the occasion to make the case for the unification of royalties. It is sufficient to say that such unification is the declared intention of the Government, as expressed by our leaders at the last General Election, so that unless any of our supporters specifically contracted out of that obligation, it is the declared policy of those who sit on this side of the House. It was hoped that it would be possible to achieve that by legislation this Session, for which purpose the matter was mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne; but the House will also recollect, from statements which have been made here during the last few months, how the matter stands. As will be remembered, there were conversations and negotiations over a considerable period with the owners of the properties concerned, and finally, on 9th March, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement in the House in which he announced that a tribunal, the membership and terms of reference of which were agreed between the parties, had been set up to ascertain what should be the cost of such a transaction, the net annual average income having been agreed for that purpose at the sum of £4,430,000.
On 26th April, the House was informed that the tribunal had made its award at the figure of £66,450,000, and the Prime Minister promised legislation as soon as

possible. The House will also recollect that at that time we were rather late in the Parliamentary season and that we had rather a longer, and certainly a much more busy, Whitsun Recess than is usual, and the old bugbear of this House, Parliamentary time, raised its head. It was clear that a Bill of this major importance, a Bill which indeed would probably be described as the Bill of the Session, could hardly hope to reach the Statute Book in the short time that remained. So on 1st June the Prime Minister announced that in order to obviate to some extent delays which might subsequently occur, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill by which some of the steps which would necessarily be required at some stage, namely, the stage of registering property, should be introduced, and with the good will of both Houses passed before the rising for the Summer Recess. That is the Bill to-day. With his unerring instinct in spotting points which are of interest to Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), when that announcement was made at once asked:
Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful to see that nothing in the first Bill ties the hands of this House on the principles of the main Bill when it comes before us?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1937; col. 834, Vol. 324.]
Happily our previously conceived intentions about the Bill coincided with the express desire of my hon. Friend. There is nothing in the way in which this Bill has been drawn which ties the hands of Parliament with regard to any subsequent Measure. Admittedly. of course, this Bill is a preliminary to unification and it has no reason for existing at all except with that ultimate objective in view. It is a forerunner, but it contains nothing at all to prejudice the unfettered consideration of the major Measure dealing with this subject, either in principle or in detail. In fact, the only drafts which this Bill makes on the future are, first of all, the general assumption that there will be a Measure for unifying royalties, and, secondly, the almost equally obvious fact that the first necessity to that end must be to collect and elucidate the details of the property involved. That is all we ask with regard to the future. Of course, elucidating and collecting the details must take some time, and it will


obviously save time in the long run if that work can be proceeded with in the near future. So it is with some confidence that we invite the owners of the property concerned to co-operate with us, in their own interests as well as in the general interest of Parliament, in getting on with the work of registration.
I hope that what I have said so far explains to the House the reasons why this Bill is being introduced. It is in principle to establish a register. The first Clause of the Bill enables the Board of Trade to do that. The Board of Trade by interpretation means the Mines Department and myself. Why should it be that Department which undertakes the registration? The answer is to be found in what I have said. We are prejudging nothing, and as we are the existing Department it is only reasonable that we should take the work on our shoulders now, leaving it open to Parliament subsequently to say whether or not we are the right persons to carry it on in future. The Board of Trade is required to receive applications. There is no compulsion on anyone to apply to be registered. There are certain inducements, which I will specify later, why they should apply, but if they prefer not they can please themselves. The reason why we do not make it compulsory is again to keep the hands of Parliament free, because if we make it compulsory we must make it compulsory for some particular purpose and the particular purpose has yet to be laid down in the Statute.
The First Clause should be read with the First Schedule which, I understand, is to lawyers perfectly clear and simple in its language. The proprietary rights which are dealt with in the First Schedule I shall try my best to explain, and if I do it in rather lay language I am sure that the lawyers in the House will forgive me. The point to remember is that the unit of property is determined by reference to its ownership rather than by reference to any of its physical boundaries, and that is what these difficult words mean. They mean one of three things: Firstly, the freehold reversion, that means the interests of the landlord in a lease, the landlord being, of course, the freehold owner. The second thing is the interests, when there is a sub-lease to a lease, of the superior lessee in the sub-lease. The third form of property is the freehold in possession, which means the interests

where the coal is not leased at all. That is to say the proprietary interest is either the landlord's reversion to a lease; or it is the superior lessee's interest in the sublease, or it is the freeholder's interest when there is no lease at all. The proprietary interest does not include any leasehold interest in a case where a colliery undertaking is itself working the coal. In fact what it really comes to in simple language is that what has to be registered is the landlord's interest—that is taking this in its wider sense— and as one unit, because the further words at the end of the Schedule mean that a landlord's interest may be subdivided; there may be mortgage interests or rent charges on the property. But that does not really affect the original interests of the landlord. Those are interests claiming under him.
Hon. Members do not seem to be very responsive to this definition. I think it is clear. It really means that it is the landlord's interests which are to be registered. The first Clause defines more particularly the details to be registered, that is to say the mines and coal property and rights held in association with it, the restrictive covenants and so on, which may be matters that either benefit or are adverse to the coal. Those are roughly what should be registered. The register when it is drawn up will be a confidential document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is merely concerned with the registering by the Board of Trade of certain property. The second Clause deals with the expenses—

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would it not be in the public interest for the public to be satisfied that what is registered corresponds with the actual mineral or the resources that are alleged to be covered by the registration?

Captain Crookshank: That will perhaps become clearer when I explain the processes to be gone through under the Second Schedule.

Mr. A. Jenkins: What is the objection to the registration being made public? If any person owns property what is the objection to the fact being made public? What is the benefit of its being kept secret?

Captain Crookshank: What interest is it to anyone to know what anyone else possesses?

Mr. Shinwell: What interest is it to you to know?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member has not followed what I have said. The Bill is introduced to save time in registering the property with which we hope that Parliament will deal in another Measure. At this stage, when we are merely asking for voluntary registration, there is, among other reasons, the reason that the register might not be complete on that basis. Therefore, there is no particular usefulness that I can see in making public, piecemeal at any rate, what goes into the register on voluntary lines.
The Second Schedule and the second Clause deal with costs. Clause 3 gives a definition of coal which I understand is the common one in mining legislation, but with a second paragraph for the purposes of this Bill. It has an extended meaning here to cover the registration of property and rights in what are called associated minerals. The definition of what an associated mineral is for the purpose of this Bill is the minerals which are comprised in existing coal leases. They can be identified in that way. Of course, this has nothing to do with the figure awarded by the tribunal, but it is the mineral property which is governed by one lease and the reasons are reasons of practical convenience. It would be better to register the whole property as such than to try at the present time to disentangle the actual coal part and the associated mineral part. That would lead to a great deal of complication and entirely unnecessary work now. The minerals involved are, of course, such things as clay, sandstone, fireclay, and so on. Hon. Members connected with the industry will recognise the point. The fourth Clause is a definition Clause. The fifth is the Scottish interpretation Clause, and the sixth the short Title, about which there is nothing to be said except that hon. Members might wonder why the Forest of Dean is excluded. The reason is the perfectly practical one that in fact the Forestry Commission does a great deal of the administering of that property and has all or most of the information which would be otherwise required.
When we come to the question of how the registration is to be carried out we must study the Second Schedule. Nothing in the Bill is binding on anyone for any

other purpose and it is not intended to be so. It is purely voluntary registration. But I think I shall carry the House with me in saying that if there is to be any registration at all, whether voluntary or otherwise, the details which are brought forward for registration must be checked and not entered on the register unless we are satisfied that they are accurate and complete as provided by this Bill, and that if there are any differences of opinion some machinery should be provided for resolving those differences and getting a final determination that whatever does go on the register is accurate. To put it into other words:
You have not got to register, but by jingo if you do,
What you have to register has got to be true,
a proposition which will be acceptable to all.
What the person intending to register has to do is to apply in the prescribed form for registration, giving the details to which I have already referred in connection with Clause 1, together with the further points referred to in the Second Schedule. The person doing the registering will obviously be a person who has a proprietary interest in the matter to be registered, though possibly it may be convenient for somebody else to do so, or there may be reason for believing that somebody else would give equally good or better information. There is permission for receiving applications in such cases. Then, the Board, having received the application, has to check it. The Board has to satisfy itself that the properties and rights, particulars of which are sought to be registered, are in fact the properties and rights which should be registered and that the servitudes are in fact the servitudes alleged to belong to that property. It has to satisfy itself that the holding really consists of what it is claimed to consist. The Board having checked those matters to the best of its ability, draws up the draft particulars of what it proposes to register and these are notified to the applicant or other party who has given notice of an interest in the matter. If there are differences of opinion then, naturally, as we always do, an effort will be made to have the differences resolved by agreement, but if agreement cannot be reached on some


points, there is a provision enabling either the Board or the person concerned to apply to the court for a determination of the point at issue.
Then the Board, having gone through that process, and having received the determination, sends copies of it to the persons concerned. If subsequently there is any reason to think that there is anything incorrect, provision is made for rectifying the register. I think those provisions cover most of the points which are likely to arise. The whole tenour of this part of the Bill is that it is desired to secure accuracy with regard to the property which is to be registered. The Bill does not indicate what the effect of all this may be upon any one in particular but clearly the general conception is that the register will be useful later for the purposes which I have adumbrated.
So much for the procedure of registration. The final point is, of course, the question of cost, which is dealt with in Clause 2 and in Part II of the Second Schedule. The Government recognise that in a case of this kind owners cannot reasonably be expected to bear the costs incurred as a result of legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not"?] There, again, the Board of Trade without prejudging anything which may occur later, is empowered, as an existing Department, to pay the costs of registration, but, normally, only one set of costs in respect of one holding. In special circumstances, if there are reasons for it, the Board may pay in excess of that. The conditions governing costs are laid down in paragraph 3 of Part II of the Second Schedule. First, the application must be made within six months after the rules of procedure have been publicly promulgated. Thus there is a time limit. There is also a condition that there shall be no neglect on the part of the applicant to comply with any of the requirements of the Bill, and a further condition that the Board of Trade will not pay costs if they have no reasonable ground for believing that a property has any marketable value. That, again, is looking a little towards the future, because there would be no point at this stage in cluttering up the register with a great deal of information which will not be required, at any rate, in the near future. Of course we are looking

to proposals for unification. The Board of Trade has the right to withold costs in any particular case but if any applicant for registration is dissatisfied, he can take the matter to the court. That is to say if the interpretation which the Board puts upon these conditions is considered unreasonable, he can get a decision as to its reasonableness or otherwise. On the other hand, he lays himself open to the possibility, as I think is only fit and proper, that the court may say that he has brought the proceedings unreasonably and unnecessarily and refuse to award him costs. The costs may be taxed costs.

Sir Percy Harris: Is this covered by the £30,000 or is it in addition to that amount?

Captain Crookshank: I am coming to that point. The liability of the Board extends not only to court proceedings when such proceedings are taken, but also to the non-litigious costs of registration. The House may ask what amount of money is involved in all this. There is the statement on the front of the Bill which gives as much information as it is possible at this stage to estimate. There is, first of all, the cost in a full year. We think that £30,000 may be the administrative cost, that is, the cost of the general secretariat and the cost of the checking by the Board of Trade of the applications which are made to them. But to estimate the other expenses, that is to say, the cost of the owner registering and the law costs which might be involved in court proceedings, is beyond the wit of man at present. This, as I have said, is a voluntary Measure and there is no means of knowing how many owners of property will take advantage of it. In fact, until we get a good deal further with the registration, it will not be possible to say how many individual properties there will turn out to be. Not only do we not know how many persons may apply for registration, but we do not know in how many cases there will be disputes between those persons and the Board. Therefore, it is impossible at this stage to give any figure which would be of any value.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to clarify this point? Reference is made here to "£30,000 in a full financial year." Is it intended that


the Board's administration should be prolonged to that extent? Is not the assumption that the forthcoming Measure is to be brought in very soon? Why, then, this reference to "a full financial year"?

Captain Crookshank: I can answer that question very simply. This is the normal Treasury procedure in presenting Estimates to this House. Estimates are always presented on the basis of what the cost would be in a full financial year, whether a full financial year is actually involved or not. That is the custom of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Then are we to take it that £30,000 would be the end of it?

Captain Crookshank: That is what we estimate the administrative cost would be if it took a year to do this.

Mr. Shinwell: Suppose it took two years, would it cost £60,000? Are we to take it that this really means £30,000 in one full financial year and another £30,000 in another full financial year?

Captain Crookshank: As I say, Estimates are always presented to the House on the basis of what the charge would be in a full financial year, and I suppose that this £30,000 is the figure for one year, and that you can add another £30,000 a year for as many more years as you like to think of.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I think this point ought to be made clear. Is it not understood that this is an administrative task which has to be undertaken by the Board of Trade and completed as rapidly as possible on the assumption that new legislation is to be produced at an early date? If so, then clearly that is one administrative task covering a short period. When it has been completed that is the end of it. Therefore, we wish to know is the full cost to be £30,000, or if not, what is the estimated figure?

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. It is at the rate of £30,000 a year, but, as I said at the beginning, we cannot prejudge any view which Parliament may subsequently take about this register. In the interim period while we are starting to collect this information, it is the Board of Trade as an existing Department which is to do the

work. Never mind what happens afterwards. Somebody else may afterwards be directed to do it. The Bill does not prejudge anything which may happen later, but as the Department which is now undertaking this task, we estimate that the administrative cost will be at the rate of £30,000 a year. I hope I have made it clear.

Sir P. Harris: But has not the Department estimated how long the task is likely to occupy and what the liability is likely to be? It ought to have some idea. It may only take six months. There is no use in pretending. This is not a House of pretence, and we ought to know what is likely to be the cost of administration. The Department must have made some calculation.

Mr. MacLaren: May I put it in this way? The Minister cannot say how long it will take to make the register. It may take a year or it may take two years, but the Minister must safeguard himself with ample funds to cover the cost. It may take £30,000 or it may take less.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged to hon. Members for trying to make my speech for me. I hope that the matter is now clear. We are not prejudging the future Bill. We want to get on with this work now. We cannot tell, nor can any hon. Member tell, how many people are likely to apply to be registered. It may be that none will apply. I hope a great many will apply, because it will be very desirable to have the cooperation of the owners in this matter. It may be that we shall get a great number of applications. The general costs, that is to say the cost of registration on the part of the owners and the cost of proceedings, if any, in the courts cannot therefore at this moment be calculated and it is unlikely that it will be possible to calculate them for some considerable time to come. We cannot do so until we are able to judge what the general run of applications will be and get an idea of the possible total number and so on. The Government's view is that reasonable costs incurred in this way should not fall on individual owners of property, but should be a central charge. As I have said several times, this Bill is the forerunner of another Bill and, as I have also said several times, we do not want to prejudge anything which may be done in


that other Bill. Therefore the only course open to us at this stage, as we have made the Board of Trade the Department for this purpose because it is an existing Department, is to invite the House to put this cost, which I cannot estimate for the time being, on the Votes.

Mr. Sanders: What kind of costs are to be allowed to the people who register?

Captain Crookshank: The costs of registration and the legal costs which may be involved in taking matters in dispute to the courts. Those costs may be what are called taxed costs. The obvious, and, indeed, the only course as I think hon. Members will see, is initially to put this charge upon the Votes.

Mr. Jenkins: There is another point about which some of us are not clear—

Captain Crookshank: Really I must ask hon. Members to allow me to proceed. We have time before us to consider these matters. This, after all, is a Second Reading, though it seems more like the Committee stage of the Bill. As I was saying, the Government do not consider that these charges should fall upon the owners individually.

Mr. Jenkins: But may we have an explanation of what these charges are to cover?

Captain Crookshank: I thought I had made that perfectly clear. The costs of registration which are incurred by the applicant and the cost of taking disputed points to the courts. I cannot be more specific than that. Those expenses are primarily put on the Votes because that is the only place where they can be put, but the Government do not consider that they should permanently fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayers. We consider, and reasonably, that they should be regarded as part of the capital cost of unifying the royalties. There is no particular reason, in our view, why the taxpayer should ultimately be charged with these costs, any more than there is any particular reason why those who are invited to register should themselves pay them. Therefore, when the time comes the Government will ask Parliament to have regard to this aspect of the question and to make provision for these purposes in the main Bill for unification, which will be dealt with, I hope, in the next Session.
I hope I have cleared up the difficulties of hon. Members about this question of costs, but if I have not succeeded on this occasion, there are other occasions, such as the Financial Resolution, that will arise.
There broadly is the picture of why we are introducing this Bill, of the kind of register that we aim at securing, of the method that we hope will be used for getting the details, and of the general scheme for paying for the acquisition of that information. I hope that the House will let us have this Bill before we rise for the Summer, because much useful work can undoubtedly be done if we can get ahead with this, quite irrespective of what may be the decision of Parliament on the later Bill. I would conclude by appealing for assistance to get the Bill through and, more important perhaps, when the Bill is through, appealing for the co-operation of all concerned to hurry On with what inevitably must be an essential part of the general programme for dealing with the major issue, which the Government have announced their intention of doing.

4.33 P.m.

Mr. George Hall: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines, in explaining this Bill, was quite clear when he kept to the Clauses of the Bill, but there was some difficulty in explaining the Schedules. Like himself, I am not a lawyer, but I did consult my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) beside me, and lie said, "Well, that is all right," so I can but assume that, as far as the First Schedule is concerned, it is all right. I will not attempt at any rate to question the hon. and gallant Member on his explanation. We are not so clear, however, with regard to the question of finance, and there probably we shall have to question him, both in the further proceedings on the Bill to-day and on the Financial Resolution, or I daresay the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will deal with that aspect.
There is no question as to the purpose of the Bill. It is, as the hon. and gallant Member said, preliminary to the Bill which is to be introduced for the nationalisation of royalties, and I cannot quite understand why the hon. and gallant Member is so sensitive as to the purpose of this Bill. Several times he has mentioned that he did not desire to prejudge


the Bill which is to be introduced later. There is no question as to the avowed intention of the Government to introduce a Bill, and, as far as we are able to ascertain, that Bill is to be introduced next Session; and not only is it the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill, but they have announced that the price which is to be paid for the royalties is already fixed. I therefore cannot quite understand the sensitiveness of the Department in endeavouring in some way to cloud the issue with regard to the purpose of this Bill. As far as I can see, the Bill is an attempt to find out who own the coal in the United Kingdom, where it is, and approximately how much there is of it. In our opinion, it marks the beginning of the end of a controversy which has been going on in this country for generations, or one can rightly say for centuries, and that is the right of the State to own minerals. The Government were astute in getting the Bill through another place before bringing it here, for there, as was expected, the interests likely to challenge even this modest Measure were found.
We shall not oppose the Bill, not that we do not think that it could be strengthened, and considerably strengthened, for this registration deals with the principle of the nationalisation of the minerals, and there are very few persons in this House who can be opposed to that principle. All the coal interests, apart from the owners of the minerals, have declared, times out of number, that they agree that the State should acquire the minerals in this country, and let it be said that the State acquisition of royalties was the only matter on which all the signatories of the Sankey Report in 1919 were agreed. The only question was whether the royalty owners should be compensated, some saying "No" and some saying "Yes." The miners' representatives said that if it could be proved that there would be certain owners of royalties who would suffer and be in need simply because of the fact that there would be no compensation, then compassionate allowances would be paid, but there was no question at all so far as the owners were concerned. Every representative of the Mining Association who sat upon the Sankey Commission agreed to the State acquisition of royalties.
So far as this House is concerned, there ought not to be very much difficulty in the way of the hon. and gallant Gentleman getting his Bill. I think it might be said that the real purpose of a register is to pay compensation, and it is very largely to assess the amount of compensation which the royalty owners are entitled to have. We could have released the Department from introducing this Bill if they would have accepted the recommendations of the Miners' Federation upon the Sankey Commission; then there would be no need at all of this registration. I mentioned that this Bill could be strengthened. In the first instance, it could be strengthened regarding registration. The hon. and gallant Member referred several times during the course of his speech to the fact that registration was voluntary, and that was also emphasised in another place. As a matter of fact, there ins no obligation upon the mineral owners to register under this Bill, and if they do not register, they are not debarred from making any claims for compensation. The only penalty, as far as I understand it, is that they may not get any expenses towards their registration, plus, of course, that to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman directed the attention of the House in the latter part of his speech, namely, that the expenses, as far as they can be ascertained by the Board of Trade at the present time, are £30,000, and they arc very largely for staff and administrative expenses.
Again let me repeat that we must have some more information concerning the other expenses. Is it meant that the Board of Trade or the Government are going to make themselves responsible for hordes of surveyors, lawyers, and others who might be deemed necessary, in the opinion of the mineral owners, to prove their rights to these minerals, and pay not only for those persons, but also, if cases are taken to the courts, the legal charges incurred? That is the kind of information to which we should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to direct his attention. Even if the expenses are doubled, to £60,000, what is £60,000 compared with the amount of royalties that are being paid in this country? There are three royalty owners, including, of course, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are taking no less than £600,000 a year out


of royalties in this country, and there are eight royalty owners who take just £1,000,000 a year out of royalties in this country. Just a few of those royalty owners could nullify any effectiveness which this Bill might have. Let them say, "We will not register"—just the eight royalty owners to whom I have referred—and this Bill will be of no effect at all.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he was questioned as to what the £30,000 mentioned in the Financial Memorandum covered, suggested that if next year, the year after, and the year after that this registration went on, it might mean that there would have to be additional money provided. May I ask him, or the President of the Board of Trade, if he is going to reply, whether the Bill is to be held up until such time as the registration is complete? As far as I can see, even taking the speech of the Secretary for Mines, there is no reason whatsoever why this register should not be made compulsory. It is not pre-
judging the issue at all. The country knows that a Bill was promised this Session for the nationalisation of royalties, and had it not been for the long negotiations between the mineral owners and the Government concerning the price of those royalties, I have no doubt the Bill would have been introduced during the course of this Session. The royalty owners themselves are very largely responsible for the delays which have occurred in connection with this legislalation. In this matter I am speaking for all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, when I say that we are convinced that you are not going to get a satisfactory register of minerals in this country until you make it compulsory.
I will not ask whether the Minister anticipates any great difficulty in obtaining proof of ownership. I take it that it will be for the person who assumes ownership to prove his right. With some minerals there is a difficulty in finding the owners, and there are many owners of royalties in this country in regard to whom it has been questioned whether they are the rightful owners or not. Will the prescribed form which is to be issued by the Board of Trade ask for information as to how these mineral properties have been acquired? That information

would be very useful and very interesting. We ought to know whether the property has been acquired by grants from the Crown at various times and for various services, how much of these royalties has been acquired through the Enclosure Acts, how much has been acquired by purchase, and so on. We think that this information is very desirable, and that is why we are anxious that there should be compulsory registration, so that we can all have this information.
Another weakness in this Bill is that it does not provide for a complete register of all the minerals. There was some alteration in the original Bill which was introduced in the other place. I cannot quite see why it is not necessary to have, not only a register of coal, but a register of lignite or brown coal and all other fuels. We maintain that all of these should be included. It is no excuse that there is little or none of these minerals in this country. I remember that some two or three years ago the House spent a considerable amount of time in passing a Bill, which is now an Act, nationalising any oil which might be found in this country. I should think that the Government must have known before that Bill was introduced that there was little or no oil in this country, but still the matter was of sufficient importance to pass through Parliament a Bill dealing with it. I am not suggesting that it is not important, and if it was important, is it not just as important that fuels and minerals of all kinds should be brought into this register? In all mining districts, particularly Yorkshire and the north, clay, ironstone, ganister and so on are mined in addition to coal, and if only coal is mined without the other minerals it is uneconomical. The register should deal with all associated minerals whether they are included in the lease which covers the working of coal or not. We cannot see that there is any justification for these minerals being left out.
The Secretary for Mines referred to the fact that this register was to be secret. We cannot understand why. Who is there who has greater interest in this question of royalties than the miners, but, as the Bill is drawn, even their representatives are not entitled to inspect the register of royalties. A large proportion of the production of the miners is taken out in royalties, and if they were distributed


among the miners in wages every week it would mean a substantial increase. We insist that this register should be made public, for there is no justification for it being kept secret. We agree that this is a preliminary Bill, and we shall not divide against it. It is necessary in order to deal with the preparatory work. We look forward to the main Bill, which we trust will deal adequately with what was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on one occasion as the black retinue of exactions from the coal industry of this country. We hope that the Government will persevere in bringing in the main Bill. With the exception of the things I have mentioned, there will be no opposition from this side of the House to the present Bill.

4.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel The Marquess of Titchfield: I should like to say a word on a new Clause that was moved by my Noble Friend, Lord Hastings, in another place when this Bill was going through the Report stage. The point I want to make is that a surface owner who has no proprietary interest in coal cannot, I understand, register under this Bill. This individual may have his rights in the surface incorrectly stated through the action of the owner of the coal underlying the surface, giving incomplete or inaccurate particulars. Such an owner would not be a person to whom notification of an application would be given under this Bill, and I think the House will agree with me that the rights of this individual should be safeguarded, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give me an assurance on this point.

4.50 P.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in saying that in principle we welcome this Bill? It is the beginning of a day which, we hope, will be followed quickly by the major Bill which will remove from the mining industry one of its biggest sores. Those associated with the industry know that nothing has rankled more with the miner who risks his life day by day than the fact that the royalty owners extract this terrible toll from the industry. Since 1920 this industry has gone through difficult times. The men

have suffered, and those engaged on the employers' side have had to suffer, too, but £84,000,000 has been taken out of the industry in royalties.
So far as this Bill clears the way for the major Bill, we welcome it. At the same time, I want to ask one or two questions. The tribunal has made the award that the royalty owners shall be paid compensation in a global sum of £66,450,000. That figure was arrived at on the basis of 15 years' purchase. I have been re-reading the Sankey Report, and it is interesting to find that the 15 years' purchase which the tribunal have found to be adequate is the one that was suggested by the owners' representatives on the Sankey Commission in 1919. If the Government of the day had accepted the owners' recommendation then and had nationalised royalties on that basis, look what we would have saved. We have paid since then £100,000,000 in royalties. That amount would have accrued to the State, and could have been used for purposes within the industry itself. However, it is better late than never. This global sum has been fixed, and the Government have accepted it.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to go into this point, because it opens up a very wide question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seemed to me to be going into the merits of the Bill which is to come afterwards.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not propose to develop that point further. We have heard that £30,000 is to be provided under this Bill for administration expenses. I take it that that is to provide for the expenses of the Board of Trade in carrying out the Bill. The Measure provides for the registration by every owner of coal. Does that involve registration of every lease? The number of royalty owners is comparatively small, but the number of leases is a multitude. There may be one, two and even six separate leases for each coal mine. If the major Bill is to be followed by some kind of reorganisation in order that we may have a unified royalty system and a unified charge it is essentional, when the State takes over the royalties, that every lease should be surrendered to the State. Another sum in regard to expenses was mentioned, and the Secretary for Mines said that it would


not fall on the taxpayer. Does that mean that all the costs that will be involved in settling disputes under this Bill will come out of the global sum? Let us assume that it is £500,000. There will be disputes about title and ownership, and if all the leases are registered there may be disputes about them. Disputes might arise leading to costly litigation. Are the costs to be met by the Government, or are they to come out of the £66,000,000? I understood the Minister to say that it would not cost the taxpayer anything. If the costs do not come out of the global sum, it means that the taxpayer will pay the costs of disputes of royalty owners as to who should get the money. I never heard of such generosity, and if that is the position it is a scandal. There may be a dispute between individuals as to which of them owns a particular property, and the taxpayers, in addition to paying them a fair price, will pay their costs as well.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House what authority he has for saying that the taxpayer will pay the expenses of litigation?

Mr. Griffiths: I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the costs of litigation would be taken out the global sum.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The hon. Gentleman did not ask me that question.

Mr. Griffiths: I am asking it now. There will be certain costs, which the Minister for Mines could not specify, involved in the registration, and I am asking whether these costs will be taken out of the global sum so that the royalty owners will receive that sum less the money spent in settling the disputes, or will the Government provide the money for the costs in addition to the global sum? Can I have an answer from the President?

Mr. Stanley: It would be much more convenient if I answered all the questions at the end.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) challenged me, and I understood that the President nodded assent when I asked the question

earlier in my remarks. The Secretary for Mines, in mentioning the costs of administration, created the impression that the Government are budgeting for the possibility that this legislation will take a long time to carry out. I understood that the Prime Minister, in making the announcement the other day, said it was not possible to introduce the major Bill this Session, and I believe he gave the assurance that it would be among the first major Bills in the next Session, which begins at the end of October. Are we to understand that it will not be introduced in the Autumn Session if work under the present Bill has not been completed? The registration is voluntary, and if the Government are not going to introduce the unification Bill until the register is complete, the royalty owners can hold up the major Bill by refusing to register. Will the Bill to unify royalties be introduced in the autumn irrespective of whether the register is complete? I have always said that the royalties ought to be taken over without compensation. The Government, however, have accepted this method, and, subject to satisfactory replies on the questions which have been raised, we shall welcome this Measure because it will pave the way for the Bill to nationalise royalties. I am convinced that every argument for the nationalisation of royalties will shortly become an argument for the nationalisation of the whole industry.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: The Minister said when introducing this Bill that he was not a lawyer. I want to congratulate him on the way he did it, because he treated the definition of such a term as property with a precision which would have done any lawyer credit. The question of registration and valuation causes much anxiety to those who wish to undertake any form of taxation or nationalisation of land. I agree that in discussing this Registration Bill it is better to keep clear from the expression of one's immediate feelings on the major policy involved. Here we are merely discussing the technique of registration. The whole purpose of registration, as the Minister has truly said, is to ascertain who are the clamiants to rights in properties in which there is coal. One of the most important things is not merely to make a record of the claimants and a register of


their names and addresses and the origin of their claims, but to see that that register is made public. I have had some experience in this kind of business, both in this House and before I came to the House.
It has been my experience that the moment we set out to make a register of the owners of land in this country and, shall I say, their ways and means of first getting their ownership, we find blank opposition to making public such data as may be received. I want to stress this point, because if the Government are in earnest they will not lose anything by making the data public. I notice that when the Minister came to that point he rather inferred, though I may be mistaken, that during the process of taking the data necessary for registration it would not be altogether proper to make it public. I want to ask the Minister or the President of the Board of Trade whether this is what it is desired to convey—that during the time this registration is being undertaken it is not deemed advisable to make the information public, but that having completed the register there would then be no objection to making the full data public? If the Minister says that while we are collecting this data it is not advisable to make it public, and we in this House condone that attitude, we may find after wards that we cannot force the hand of the Government to make the data public because we have already passed this Measure. I want to safeguard that position.
Apart altogether from one's rooted beliefs and opinions as to the policy involved there is something more in making the data public. The draftsman of this Bill must have been an expert in real property. He has done his work exceedingly well, more especially when framing the Scottish Clauses. There is all the pedantic Latin which might be excluded with advantage. We might use the word "superior" instead of the dear old Latin dominium. Meticulous care has been taken to bring in all the various interests which might be involved in registration, but in none of the provisions of the Schedules is any regard had to any little group or community in the country who, though not specially distinct as owners of coal, might feel concern about historic rights and rights of usage over contiguous land. There is no provision that they are to have a right to appeal.

All that is in the Bill are clearly defined legal rights and not public rights. I am sure the Minister would be only too willing that any of those interested in public rights should have a right of appeal.

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Member must be referring to surface rights, which are excluded.

Mr. MacLaren: I notice that they are excluded, but I am sure that further inquiry will show that a number of common rights in the country may be involved, and in any case there ought to be such publicity that no rights whatever, be they public or private, shall be excluded from consideration. I want to stress specially this point of publicity, and I am doing it with emphasis because of my past experience in these matters.
Then there is the cost of litigation. Here, I agree, the Minister is largely "in the air," as it were. He cannot say here and now what will be the cost of the litigation which may arise out of this Bill, and, indeed, the litigation arising out of registration will be nothing, in my opinion, compared with the litigation when it comes to dealing with specific claims for compensation. Like my hon. Friend who spoke before me, I was a little impressed by the naive manner in which the Minister said, "Why should the taxpayer be burdened with the cost of this registration?" He said that the cost would be passed on. Passed on to what? Passed on to the sum total? Is the sum total of the £66,000,000 involved in this compensation to be expanded by the cost of litigation, or, to put it the other way, will the litigation costs be deducted from the sum total? There was a little discussion as to whether the litigation costs would amount to so many thousands within the financial year. There, again, the Minister cannot say. In my opinion, they will be in excess of the amount which he has estimated.
Finally, let me say that the more publicity we can have as to the ownership of the land and its minerals, the more we on this side of the House will support any action that any Government may take. This registration strangely enough, is being advocated by the present
Government. My mind goes back to previous occasions when a registration of this kind was advocated, not for the


purchase of royalties or of land, but to deal with the value of land in another way, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not so eager in those days to have an expeditious register. I want the House, and more especially my colleagues on this side, to observe that when we are going to open the taxpayers' pockets to pay for that which God gave to all men as a free gift, namely, the land, when we are opening the taxpayers' pockets to pay those who say that it belongs to them, we find the Conservative party almost as enthusiastic as myself to do something about the land question.

5.12 p.m.

Sir G. Ellis: It is a little surprising that objection should have been taken by hon. Members opposite to the voluntary character of the Bill at this stage. It is only a matter of registration, and I think we are justified in assuming that the great majority of royalty owners will voluntarily ask to be put upon the register. This is in the nature of a preliminary step, and, as I see it, there are a good many points yet to be settled as to what will go on the register and whether certain rights and interests are to be admitted or rejected. Presumably, it is a good thing to have a voluntary stage at which these things can be considered, and then certain principles can be laid down which will govern subsequent registration. I think that is a perfectly sound view to take, and one which is rather helping than hindering the object which the Government, and I hope everyone else, has in view. There is no doubt that we shall arrive at the stage at some time when a certain number of people will have hesitated to register or shown that they do not desire to do so, and when that stage comes compulsion will be inevitable, because the Government must have on this register a true and complete record of coal ownership in the country. We ought to get as much as we can by voluntary agreement before we proceed to compulsion.
I hope that the Minister will take note of what my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) said just now in regard to the ownership of the freehold. It is a very difficult problem and most of us who have been engaged in this kind of work have long come to the conclusion that it is not a separable thing and that account must be taken of it; otherwise we may be landed in endless

difficulties. One other point on which we should like a little information is as to interests in other minerals which are found in coal measures, and which in some pits cannot possibly be dealt with apart from the coal. I notice the Minister did not say anything about that, but I suppose that may be regarded as being included in coal interests. Could the Minister or the Attorney-General explain whether there will be any appeal from the decision of the High Court when questions are taken up to it regarding permission to put certain things on the register, or if points arise as to the rectification of the register. I say definitely that I hope there will not be an appeal, because we want to get this business finished, and it will add to the cost and delay if there is an appeal. I hope that as many people as possible will enter into registration voluntarily.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Batey: The first point against the Bill is that it is not understandable. The second is that the public have to pay for the registration. The third is that the register is not open to the public. Those three points condemn the Bill, and although some of my hon. Friends have welcomed it and think that it is an innocent Bill, I would not have the slightest hesitation in going into the Lobby against it. Is the object of the Bill to help forward, by the making of this register, the Government's second Bill to nationalise royalties? I do not believe it is so. I believe the Bill is an excuse on the part of the Government to prevent them from having to put forward a Bill to nationalise royalties. The Government promised to nationalise royalties, and everybody thought that they meant to carry out their promise, but now it is as clear as can be that they are planning not to carry out such a policy but to take such steps as will prevent them from having to put forward the Bill.
The Government say: "All we have to do is to establish a register so that royalty owners can register, and then, if we come to the time when some royalty owners will not register, we shall have to bring compulsion upon them." How will the Government do that? Only by passing another Bill before we reach the Bill. to nationalise royalties. Even if we get over that difficulty and the register is established, there may be royalty owners who disagree with the proposal. They


have the right to go to the courts, and even to the High Court. Does anybody believe that these things will all be done in the autumn, and during the Parliamentary Recess, in order that the Bill to nationalise royalties may be brought in next year? No such thing will happen. It is as clear as anything that the Government have brought forward the present Bill to stand as an excuse so that they will not have to bring in the Bill to nationalise royalties.
The Minister said that the Bill is simple; it is so simple that I defy any hon. Member, except the legal gentlemen, to understand it. The Government say that the object of the Bill is perfectly innocent and simple, merely to establish a register in which royalty owners may register if they like. If that be the object, the Bill could have been drafted in more simple and plain language. It is drafted in such difficult language that I begin to grow suspicious. I have been interested in a certain question which was dealt with in a Bill during 1934. We allowed that Bill to go through, believing that there was nothing dangerous in its words, but when one turns up that Bill and reads those words it is evident that they are mighty dangerous words. One's experience in this House makes one rather suspicious of Bills drafted so that hon. Members cannot understand them. If the Government's only object is to establish a register in which royalty owners can register, they should have used language which was plain and simple.
I was under the impression that there was already a register in the Ministry of Mines. Royalty owners pay a royalty levy, and the Ministry have the register of the royalty owners who pay that levy. If royalty owners are already registered with the Ministry, who do we need a second register? We cannot need a new register for any of the coal which is being worked at the present time or is likely to be worked in the near future. One can understand that we might need a new register for coal that has not already been worked or tapped or for seams of coal that have not yet been found, but what one wants to know is the object of the register. It seems to me that the Ministry have all the necessary information as to present royalty owners and what they receive, without any new register.
It may be said that the Bill is only the first step in the Government's policy to nationalise royalties; if it is, the Government ought to be prepared to take the House into their confidence and to show their hand about what they mean to do in regard to nationalising royalties. There is a fundamental difference between some of us on this side of the House on the nationalising of royalties. In my opinion, we should oppose even the first step that the Government are now taking in respect of the nationalisation of royalties unless we know that the Government do not mean to debit the industry with the amount of money taken by the royalty owners. We claim that when the Government bring in the Bill to nationalise royalties they should be prepared to find the money, and not to debit the industry with the £66,500,000. If the Government are now taking the first step, they must have made their plans. Surely they know what they are going to do and have thought out every step in the nationalisation of royalties. If the Government have thought out every step, they should take us into their confidence and tell us whether the industry will be debited with the £66,500,000. Some of us have spent all our lives among the mining community, and we know that the greatest difficulty has been caused to the miners of this country by the royalty owners who have lived in luxury while miners have been starving. We have no sympathy with the royalty owners. The Government should tell us to-day exactly what they mean to do.
It was amusing to hear the Secretary for Mines standing at that Box and saying: "We are prepared to pay out of the taxpayers' money £30,000 for the royalty owners to register." The royalty owners should be only too glad to register when there is a prospect of their getting £66,500,000. They would not get that money under a Labour Government, and if they had that prospect they should be glad to pay the expense of their registration. The Secretary for Mines said that the taxpayers have to foot the Bill, and then that it would never do to have a public register and so let the public see what the royalty owners are claiming and to what they are entitled. When the Royal Commission reported in 1919, it was one of the best sellers in the Press when they revealed to the public of this


country what each royalty owner was receiving. The public have an immense interest in the subject and know just what these people are wanting and what they are likely to get. Until we can get a Bill which we understand better than this, and until the Government are prepared to publish the register and to make the royalty owners pay for their own registration, we should oppose the Bill.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that we ought to be extremely suspicious, but I support the Bill because, whether the Government deserve to be trusted or not, matters ought to go more quickly in this matter of nationalisation or unification, if the Bill passes, considering the state of public business and the amount of work involved. I wish to say nothing about the complicated legal provisions of the Bill; so far as my inadequate equipment goes, they seem to be all right. A good deal has been said about the idea that it should be made compulsory to register. I suggest there is no excuse for not making registration compulsory, and that a great many advantages would arise from doing so. In the speech he made at the beginning of the Debate, the Secretary for Mines did not advance any reason for not making registration compulsory. The object of the Bill is to clear away the difficulties at the beginning, and to get a good deal of valuable information on which the major Bill may be based, but you will not get 100 per cent. registration unless registration is made compulsory. You will get anything from 1 per cent. to 75 per cent.
It is said that we do not want to prejudge any issue, but you do not prejudge any issue if you merely discover, for your own public purposes, what interests are involved. When the Local Government Board, in one of the more recent and larger wars for human liberty, made a list of the whole community on which it was intended to plan conscription, nobody suggested that they should make it voluntary, and I do not see why we should not make it compulsory on the people who have been extracting money from the public for years to say what their so-called rights are. Once registration is made compulsory there is the advantage that you can also make the information public. The Bill is carefully designed to bribe royalty owners to

register, by saying: "If you register, we will pay your costs, but if you do not register within six months, probably when the next Bill comes on you will get powerful interests to make an Amendment to say that we shall pay your costs."
The Minister did not give any very convincing reason why the matter should be made compulsory, but we all know why it is not desired that it should be published, namely, because, the moment it is made public, the people of this country will know who has the right in law, however little it may be in morals, to extract this immense wealth from the country and lay this burden upon it. We know a good deal already, and, when we learned a little more in 1919, it was extremely valuable for purposes of propaganda. We ought to be entitled to know what our own world is, and who is entitled to extract so much of it. It was very valuable and interesting in 1919, and it will be very valuable and interesting in 1937 and 1938. For that reason the. royalty owners do not want publicity, and the Government are assisting them in not having it. I gather from the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) that he contemplates a period of voluntary registration, followed by a period of compulsory registration, which in turn would be followed by the actual resumption by the nation, at a substantial expense, of property which ought never to have belonged to anyone but the nation. If there really are to be three stages and not two, it is an additional argument in favour of making the matter compulsory at once.
There are one or two minor matters that I want to mention. The first is that there seems to be some confusion about what costs would have to be paid, and, in particular, about the costs of proceedings in court. It seems to me to be clear from paragraph 5 (1) of Part II of the Second Schedule that the costs to be paid, provided always that they are reasonably incurred, are to include the costs of proceedings in court for determining various questions of fact. To a great many lawyers it will not appear particularly unreasonable that, when compulsory registration is being carried out, the costs, provided that they are reasonably incurred, should be paid by the State, and it seems to me to be plain that the Bill provides that these costs should be paid by the State. But whether it is really right to pay costs depends partly —

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937.
2. Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1937.
3. Methylated Spirits (Sale by Retail) (Scotland) Act, 1937.
4. Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 1937.
5. Pier and Harbour Order (Falmouth) Confirmation Act, 1937.
6. Pier and Harbour Order (Culag (Lochinver)) Confirmation Act, 1932'-
7. Pier and Harbour Order (Fowey) Confirmation Act, 1937.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Maidenhead Water) Act, 1937.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sevenoaks Water) Act, 1937.
10. Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation Act, 1937.
11. Eastbourne Extension Act, 1937.
12. Gosport Water Act, 1937.
13. Hastings Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1937.
14. Lancashire Electric Power Act, 1937.
15. Rotherham Corporation Act, 1937.
16. Ilford Corporation Act, 1937.

Orders of the Day — COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNER SHIP) BILL. [Lords.]

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I was saying that the moral justification for any particular right that is to be expropriated sometimes has some effect on the provision as to the cost to be incurred in connection with making good the claim to compensation. Whatever may be the moral justification of royalty owners, it will probably be agreed by the whole House that their claim in morals is certainly not the highest claim that has ever been known, and yet they are being treated in the Bill better than any expropriated person in the history of

English law. It is a general principle of compensation law that, in the absence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the expropriated person, the cost of the assessment of the compensation shall be borne by the expropriating authority, the Government, or someone other than the person who is being compensated. I do not think there is a single precedent hitherto for paying them also the cost of establishing the existence of their title, and yet the Bill is proposing to do that. If by some curious chance property of this kind resided in the working class, instead of in archbishops and dukes, I do not think that provision would have been found in it.
Another objection which arises from the nature of the subject-matter is that it is extremely difficult to discover from the Bill what kind of costs are going to be incurred. That is the fault, not of the Government, but of the complexity of the whole matter. We are dealing with large claims by a group of people who, whatever their merits, are known by the entire community to have demanded three times as much as they are getting and to have expected nearly twice as much, and in the circumstances they are not likely to deal with questions of costs and title with any very lenient hand. Smarting with disappointment, they will be prepared to spend money out of anyone's pocket when they are trying to make the best title they can make. Consequently we may feel sure that, with the knowledge that in this very Bill provision is being made for paying them costs which had never been paid to mortal man before, the costs will be on a very extravagant basis. If they knew that they had to pay all the costs of establishing their title out of their own pocket, my profession and kindred professions would not be looking forward with such a healthy appetite to the operation of the Bill.
The Bill, especially if it is made compulsory, will create something very like a very valuable and important register of title. True, it will be an epitaph, and that will make it more attractive to many. Unlike registers of titles in so many countries, it will have the great disadvantage that, as I see it, it will not be in any way conclusive as to any matter of title at all. It is not easy in our complicated system of law to make any


register of title to any real property conclusive, but it is not impossible. It has been done and it ought to be done again. I ask the Government to see in Committee that the Bill shall say that, when questions of title have been settled, it shall determine the title of any particular unit of ownership for good and all. If that is done, it will be a very much better Bill. Notwithstanding all its sins I, in common with most of my hon. Friends, shall support the Second Reading.

5.50 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I do not claim to be either a miner or a mine owner, but I listened to the statement of the Secretary for Mines and he did not show his usual clarity. One of his particular gifts, as a private Member and as a Minister, is that he is able to give a precise statement of a Bill as well as, when occasion requires, precise criticism. He dismissed the Bill as a small rather innocent Measure of six Clauses. Most of the important material is to be found in the Schedules. The growing habit of putting the greatest part of a Bill into a Schedule is a bad one. It is rather disarming. Members read the Clauses and then have to study very complex Schedules. The Minister was not able to make clear the whole significance of these Schedules. It is our responsibility to study the financial position closely. The Financial Memorandum states:
The cost of the staff and other administrative expenses of the Board of Trade under this Bill will probably not exceed £30,000 in a full financial year.
We asked questions about the full significance of this £30,000, and the hon. Gentleman dismissed the matter under the cover of a Treasury custom. The Treasury always provides for a full financial year. before we part with the Bill we should have a more precise statement as to how the money is to be spent. First, how much is to be spent on administrative staff? There is nothing to differentiate the amount to be spent on staff and that to be spent on expenses. Is this organisation to be one of lawyers or is it to be merely a number of officials just entering claims in the register? We also have a right to know how long these registrations are to continue. The Second Schedule says:
The Board shall not be liable to pay any such costs as aforesaid incurred in relation to a holding in respect of which no

application for the registration of particulars is duly made within the period of six months beginning as to England and Scotland respectively on the date on which notice is first published in the 'London Gazette.'
That seems to imply that there is going to be expedition. If registrations are not voluntarily made within six months, the applicants will not be given expenses. If that is so, a good deal of our criticism will go by the board. It ought to be made clear what is the liability of the Ministry of Mines and Parliament to the owners of royalties who are going to register their claims. I agree that it is very remarkable that Parliament is going to pay the expenses. Are they legal expenses or only the expenses of employing surveyors or mining experts to measure arid assess the value of their property? That all ought to be made clear. Is it merely a question of the legal title? I think the House, as the custodian of public money, ought to have it made clear what is the estimated total expense, not for one year but for the whole period of registration likely to ensue under the Bill.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The Bill states that £30,000 has to be found in the first year out of moneys provided by Parliament. If that does not mean the taxpayer, I do not know what it means. Had it said that it had to be allocated out of certain moneys paid for in royalties it would have been clear to us, but it does not say that. If we allowed that to go through now without something definite we should let ourselves into a position that we have no right to be in. What is the meaning of this term?

Mr. Stanley: What term?

Mr. Tinker: The payment of the £30,000. The financial memorandum says that the expenses of the Board of Trade shall be defrayed out of moneys supplied by Parliament. We want the President of the Board of Trade to make it clear that that is the full responsibility that the House will have to meet. If we are told that whatever money is incurred in settling these claims will be found out of the ultimate charge of the £66,450,000, I should have no objection to the Measure, because I think it is the right thing to be done, but if we have to find one penny outside this large amount I shall ask my colleagues to vote against the Bill unless we are clear on the point.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The House, I am sure, would not expect me to make a speech. My hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines explained very clearly and at considerable length the provisions of this Bill, but hon. Members who, during the course of the Debate, have raised particular points are, of course, entitled to expect an answer to them, and I will certainly try to give it to them. The Debate was opened by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), who with his usual courtesy explained to me that he has an urgent and indeed inescapable engagement elsewhere and asked me to excuse his presence, but I would like to refer to some of the points which he raised. He was rather critical of my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines because he said he was sensitive on this question of committing the House in advance. I think that the hon. Gentleman was sensitive on that point, and rightly sensitive. It is not only something that is due to those, who when the time comes to introduce the major Bill, may be opposed to it either in principle or in detail, but I think it is something that is due to all hon. Members of this House that they should not, on a machinery Bill of this character, taken in isolation, when it is impossible to discuss many of the major items, find themselves by some decision committed to take a certain course on a Bill such as may be introduced.
I think that it is with the general agreement of hon. Members on all sides that we have been extremely careful so to draft this Bill that no hon. Member will find himself in that position when we come to the larger scope of the Debates upon the major Bill. Here for a moment let me deal with a few remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). The hon. Gentleman has an extremely suspicious mind.

Mr. Ede: He has learned a lot.

Mr. Stanley: He obtains, no doubt, considerable satisfaction from it, and I should be the last to try to deprive him of his pleasure, but I would only say to him, will he pity poor Members of the Government, because if he is so suspicious that the fact that we do introduce a Bill means that we do not mean to go on with anything else, what would he have said if we had done nothing at all? Surely

his suspicion would have been expressed with redoubled force. Let me reassure him. The present Prime Minister made a definite statement to the House that he intended in the next Session to introduce a Bill dealing with the unification of coal royalties. I do not recede one inch from the statement that he then made and the pledge that he then gave to the House and to the country.

Mr. Lee: Is that irrespective of any return that may be made under this Bill?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the relevance of that question.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: If the return is incomplete, will the Bill be proceeded with?

Mr. Stanley: That point was raised by another hon. Member. Let me make it quite plain that the date of the introduction of the main Bill is not in any way dependent upon the completion of the register under this Bill. The only object of this Bill is, in view of the fact that certainly three or four months must elapse before we can make any progress with the major Bill, to try to use that time to the best advantage possible, so that the final liquidation of the whole of this great problem may be expedited. I want the House to understand that when the next Session starts this Bill will have no effect on the date of the introduction of the major Bill.

Mr. George Griffiths: The Commission have said that the amount shall be £66,450,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from the date that it was declared, so that he will be able to deduct from the coal owners the amount they are now receiving?

Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that quite clearly is a matter which falls to be discussed under the major Bill and not under this Bill. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of making his point abundantly in a few months' time.

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot sleep at nights for it.

Mr. Stanley: I regret that I am an innocent cause for prolonging the hon. Member's insomnia for yet a few more months, but I think that the House will


clearly understand that this is one of the matters which will appertain to the major Bill and not to this Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdare also made the point that he would like to see the Bill strengthened but objected to the fact that it was a permissive and not a compulsory Bill. If he will reflect, he will see that, if you are, in fact, to have a Bill of this character which is designed not to prejudge the issues or to bind people down to strict definitions, it is almost impossible to have it anything except of a voluntary character. That is why the stimulus of this Bill which we have to-night is the carrot rather than the kick; and the provision that costs shall only be paid if registration takes place within six months is the sanction under this Bill, rather than the compulsion of the individual and penalties if he should fail. It is quite clear that in the major Bill there must be an element of compulsion and of finality of one kind or another, and that Bill must definitely say that at a particular period on a certain date the register must close and the particulars must be filled in. I would point out to hon. Members that there will be in the hands of the Government a very valuable sanction indeed, the sanction most valuable of all, of saying that those who at a certain date have not registered will be unable to share in the money which is to be provided for compensation.
I pass to another very important point which has been raised by several hon. Members—the question of the cost of this Bill. I will, first of all, deal with a rather more technical point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) as to the way in which these costs were put. I can myself see no other way in which you can express these costs, except on the assumption that they go on for a full year and represent the expenditure during that full year. It is at the moment impossible to estimate actually how long that task will take. It may be that nobody will take advantage of this permissive provision, but still the staff will be employed and will be drawing wages. It may be that 100 per cent. may register in the first month or two, when clearly the task of the staff would be shortened immensely. In any case, it will be impossible to give any reliable estimate until we have discussed the major Bill and have seen the time limit given in that Bill for the completion of this registration. I suggest that

the usual plan of giving the cost of the service as for a full year is the only one that can be adopted. With regard to the particulars as to what staff is to be employed, how many are to be lawyers and how many are to be clerks, I think that the hon. Baronet would probably like to adopt the normal course, which is, to wait for information of that kind till the necessary Supplementary Estimate is introduced, because that is the time when that kind of detail is more conveniently discussed.
I pass from this rather more technical point to the major points which have been raised as to the principles upon which these costs are being incurred. Hon. Members will realise that the expense of this Bill falls into two classes, one is the expense incurred by the Board of Trade, or in fact the Mines Department itself in the keeping of the register, the reception of these particulars and the checking of their accuracy, and the other the costs. which actually are incurred by those who desire to register, but whose costs are refunded under the provisions of this Bill. I think that with regard to the first part there is no dispute. This register is for the advantage of the Government. It is for the purposes of the people who are. eventually to be the owners of this, property and who, therefore, want the particulars of the property they are to, take over. Therefore, quite clearly these-expenses have to be incurred.
Some criticism has been raised both as. to the principle of refunding the cost to. the royalty owners and also some criticism as to what those costs may be. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), in a burst of legal candour, uttered before he left for another place, and only slightly obscured by an amending statement after he returned, says that to a lawyer it was not unreasonable that under conditions of this kind the reasonable cost of the persons whose property was being taken over should be paid by the person who is taking over the property. That, I think, is the reason which has. actuated the Government. After all, in this case it is the Government which is the mover. It is not the royalty owners who have come to us and said, "Can we sell our property." It is the Government which has said, "It is in the national interest that this property should be taken


over," and in those circumstances it is only fair that the expenses necessary for ascertaining the actual property which is to be acquired under the Bill, should be paid by those people who are to acquire it.
Here I want to make plain something which, I think, has been rather misunderstood by a number of hon. Members. They have been worried at the idea that two gentlemen, to quote the hon. and learned Member opposite, the archbishop on the one hand and the duke on the other, might dispute between themselves as to the title to a particular unit of holding and carry on that dispute in the most expensive and luxurious way, entirely at the expense of the taxpayer, and I quite see that that is a prospect which would fill any but a lawyer with alarm. I direct the attention of hon. Members to Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, where they will see in paragraph (d):
Such matters of title as are requisite for the identification of the holding as a unit of separate ownership.
That is the information which the Board require and which the person who registers has to furnish. The object is not to establish which of two individuals has the legal title to a particular holding. The object of the registration is to establish the holding, and only such matters of detail as are requisite for the identification of the holding need be registered. Therefore, it will be for the Board of Trade, who are the registering authorities, to say whether they think it necessary for this dispute between the archbishop on the one side, and the duke on the other, to be resolved before they can sufficiently identify the holding.

Mr. Pritt: By virtue of Part 1 of the Second Schedule, Clause 2, Sub-section (3), the Board might send to the Court any issue arising
in connection with the ascertainment of the facts material to the proposed legislation.
It is true that the motion must come from the Board, but upon every single question of any kind the Board has to make up its mind, and, therefore, it can only do so by sending it to the Court.

Mr. Stanley: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member agrees that it lies with the Board, and that, therefore, it is for the Board to say whether, if there

is a dispute as to title, it makes impossible the identification of the holding.

Mr. Pritt: It is any fact material to the register, including the ownership.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and learned Member has an advantage over me here, but I only want to impress on the House the fact that it rests with the Board to decide. It is for them to say: "Despite this dispute between two people as to the legal title to the coal, we have sufficient information to enable us to identify the holding."

Mr. Pritt: There is more than that in it.

Mr. Stanley: I do not think there is any good in carrying out a sort of Nervo and Knox argument across the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which is Nervo? Which is Knox?"] I leave hon. Members to decide. I can only say that that is what I am informed is the legal interpretation. That is the intention of the Board of Trade, and when the Bill comes to Committee if there is any doubt about this provision we can on an Amendment discuss it in the ordinary way. I should, however, like to make it quite plain that it is not the intention of the Board that the provisions of these Schedules shall be used for the resolution of disputes between two parties as to the legal title to particular coal.

Sir Stafford Cripps: In that case will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the meaning of the proviso in paragraph (1) of Part II, on page 13, line 6, with regard to the payment of costs?:
Provided that, if two or more applications are made in relation to the same holding,
which I presume is a disputed action
the liability of the Board under this sub-paragraph shall be limited to such a sum as would have been payable by them if a single application only had been made, so however that the Board may pay costs in excess of that sum in any case in which it appears to them that the making of more than one application was justified having regard to any special circumstances.
Surely, that contemplates a dispute between two owners being settled by the court.

Mr. Stanley: I am not denying that it may be necessary in a particular case for the Board to refer the matter to the court, but the provision to which the hon.


and learned Member has called attention is to prevent duplication of registration costs. The point that I want to make is that it is at the volition of the Board that an application to the Court is made, and not of the claimant.
Perhaps I may now pass to some other points that were raised. One was the question of the secrecy of the register. The hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Pritt), in a burst of candour which was reminiscent more of his speeches at this end of the Strand than of his speeches at the other end of the Strand, said that he needed that for the purpose of propaganda. He can hardly expect this House to legislate simply for the purpose of providing him with propaganda.

Mr. Pritt: Then it is the case that His Majesty's Government think that information on public matters must be concealed in order to prevent legitimate propaganda?

Mr. Stanley: That sort of interruption by the hon. and learned Member makes me realise why he has made such a great success at the Bar. It is a case of the old and traditional practice of saying exactly the opposite of what your opponent has said, in order to prove what a bad case he has. The hon. and learned Member said exactly the opposite of what I said. On the question of secrecy it is clear that so long as this register is optional and is still conditional before reaching finality on the passage of the main Bill, its contents must be secret. To start with, unless confidences are observed it may make it very difficult to get the register which we desire. Secondly, it may well be that when the major Bill is passed there may be some alteration in the actual registration which has to take place, and before that happens the disclosure of prior applications would, of course, be grossly unfair.
Let it be remembered that the register starts as the register of holdings in the possession of private individuals, but it will end as the register of holdings which are the property of the State. When that happens and the register is simply a description of what the State in one form or another owns, I myself, although I can make no pledge at the moment, can see no objection whatsoever to its being made public. But I must warn the hon.

and learned Member about the propaganda business, because he will realise that nobody is going to register values or the amount of the money they are receiving by way of royalties. I am afraid, therefore, that it will be very dull reading for some hon. Members.
Now I pass to a most important point which was raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield). He raised the position of the surface owner. This is a rather complicated matter, to which I want to give a careful reply. The purpose of the register is to obtain information which will be useful for the assessment of compensation under the main Bill. It is, therefore, important that the particulars registered should include the particulars not only of the mineral property in a physical sense but also of the working rights annexed to it, and of any restrictions with which that mineral property may be burdened. Obviously, those matters affect the value of the property on which compensation is to be paid. The existence of such rights or restrictions that we want to have registered may affect persons who have no mineral interests themselves and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. Here I want to make it quite clear that because such persons are outside the scope of the Bill no statement or particulars that are entered on the register can in any way affect or prejudice the rights of such persons.
Perhaps I might give an instance. The Board of Trade may be invited to register that there is annexed to a given area of coal a right to withdraw support from the surface without any obligation to repair damage or pay compensation. It will be the duty of the Board of Trade to satisfy itself whether or not such a claim is correct. Even if the board accepted such a claim in error the owner of the surface would be entirely unaffected because under the Bill he is not a party to it and, therefore, that could have no binding effect against him. Similarly in the case of an owner of coal who has registered particulars of his property, he may have overlooked the existence of some restrictive covenant which affects the working of it. No such omission could affect the rights of the person who had the benefit of that covenant which the applicant had omitted to register. The


complete safeguard for anyone who might otherwise have been affected by this Bill in his capacity as a surface owner is that there is no reference to him in the Bill, and, therefore, nothing that is done in the Bill could affect his rights. With regard to those who are within the scope of the Bill, I can promise that what they register under this Bill will not be held conclusive for the purpose of the main Bill until they have been given an opportunity on the passage of the main Bill to reconsider the information after they see in full the purposes for which it is required, as set out and defined by the main Bill.

Sir S. Cripps: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to ask the High Court to adjudicate on a case and to say: "Your decision really means nothing, because anybody can reconsider it later on and litigate it all over again?"

Mr. Stanley: Certainly not. We shall never bring to the notice of the High Court anything which will not be affected by what I have just announced. Clearly, you cannot make conclusive upon the man who registers, information which he gives in ignorance of the definite purposes for which it is required. The definitions will be included in the main Bill and he will be given a chance of seeing those definitions, and before the information that he has given is regarded as finally binding and conclusive opportunity will be given to him to amend it.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked me a question in regard to leasehold property. Leasehold property will not be registered, but it will be necessary for those who register the three classes of rights to which they are entitled, to give any necessary information about leasehold property.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What I am concerned about is that leases are to be registered. Page 4 defines what a lease and a sublease are. If there are disputes, as there conceivably may be, about leases, and they may well be more numerous about leases than disputes about title to the whole property, will the cost of disputes of that character have to be paid for just as the cost of disputes about titles?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member is wrong. Leases have not to be registered.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Mines in his opening speech, explained as will be found in the First Schedule, the units of separate ownership which are to be registered, namely, freehold possession, freehold reversions, and leasehold reversions in the case of an underlease of a main lease. A simple leasehold is not a unit of holding and, therefore, as such it has not to be registered.

Mr. Griffiths: I know of collieries where there are separate leases to work three separate seams from the same royalty owner, for varying purposes. When we come to the major Bill I presume that it will contain provisions by which all these leases are surrendered to the State.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker {Captain Bourne): Mr. Speaker pointed out that on this Bill we cannot discuss the provisions of the main Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Are not all these leases to be registered? In Clause 4 there are definitions and interpretations. Lease, for example, includes an under-lease and an agreement. I take it, therefore, that leases are to be registered.

Mr. Stanley: This is rather a small point, but it does not in the least affect the register. Information as to leases would have to be given.

Sir S. Cripps: Is not that to be one of the matters as to which an interested person can complain to the High Court if a wrong entry is made in a particular registration document as to the provisions of a lease? Therefore, questions concerning leases could be litigated in that way.

Mr. Stanley: Subject to what I have already explained, it is not necessary that we should know which of the two is really entitled to the lease. It is the same point over again. I know that the hon. and learned Member disagrees with me, and no doubt the matter will be more fully explored in Committee stage. The only other point is that raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who wanted to know whether there was any contradiction between the Financial Memorandum, Clause 2 of the Bill and the explanation given by the Secretary for Mines. The issue is quite simple. We cannot consider in this Bill the provisions of a Bill which has not yet been presented and, therefore, for the moment this work is undertaken by the Board of


Trade and the expenses are paid by the Board of Trade. But that does not preclude us, when the time comes to present the major Bill to Parliament, from including proposals that these payments shall be dealt with in a different way. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to answer the questions which have been raised and I think that in all quarters of the House there is general acceptance of its principles. I hope, therefore, the House will now be prepared to give it a Second Reading.

6.34 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I should not create a breach in the well understood Rules of the House that the Minister should make the last speech on a Bill, were it not for the perfectly extraordinary suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, a suggestion which has never been put before the House before. He now says that although the Bill sets up a register of the proprietary interests in coal mines in Great Britain and in certain other properties and rights in land, the particulars which will appear in that register are not to bind in any sense the people who register.

Mr. Stanley: indicated dissent.

Sir S. Cripps: That is specifically what the right hon. Gentleman stated.

Mr. Stanley: What I said was that they would not bind the people who register until after the passage of the main Bill and they have had a chance, therefore, of seeing the definitions in that Bill. Ultimately they will be bound.

Sir S. Cripps: This is becoming more and more like an Alice in Wonderland or an Alice through the Looking Glass as a piece of legislation. Either this register will ascertain and finally decide the rights and titles of the parties to the coal mines in this country or it will not. It cannot do that at one time and not at another time. There is no provision in the Bill which says that it shall not bind anybody until after another Bill has been passed and that when the other Bill has been passed it shall bind them. There is no suggestion of that kind. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, but that is what he has just said. He has said that it is not the intention of the Bill to bind people who register as regards their titles and particulars of their titles

until after they have seen the main Bill and have had an opportunity of considering in the light of the provisions of the main Bill whether they desire to be bound or not.
This is the most fantastic suggestion ever put forward in the House of Commons. It means that you are setting up a great elaborate piece of machinery and going to provide, at the cost of the State, for an infinity and a maximum number of appeals to the High Court on every conceivable subject. You are going to have this elaborate procedure and a whole series of decisions by the High Court, and then you are going to turn round and say to the subjects whose title has been decided, "This is only just for fun that we are going to the High Court, it does not bind anybody. When you know and see how we are going to divide the money you can come forward and dispute the title." That is an impossible attitude to take up. Unless the registration is going to decide something finally it is of no value to anybody. It is unnecessary to have a trial canter as regards registration of coal mines. There are plenty of particulars in the Department already. Unless you are going to say at once that matters referred to the High Court or left unreferred to the High Court are going to bind the people who have chosen to register themselves under the Bill, it seems to me the Bill is a perfectly useless vain piece of paper, merely wasting public money, and arriving at an ascertainment of something which is not intended to be final and of no value whatever.
One other matter—the question of the costs of the litigations. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the usual thing that the one who was acquiring the property paid the costs of the person whose property was being acquired. That is true as far as the ascertainment of compensation is concerned, but not true of the ascertainment of title. In this case the ascertainment of compensation has taken place; it is 66,500,000, and all that remains now is the ascertainment of title. A dispute between royalty owners will be which is to get the greater or lesser share of the money, of the loot as one hon. Member described it, and it has never before been laid down in our legislation that disputes as to title between rival property owners should be paid for by


the State. That is what is suggested here. I regard this as a serious matter. When we come to the much larger questions of land nationalisation and the nationalisation of industries, we shall be paying for infinitely more disputes than we shall have to pay for in this case. When people can get these disputes settled free of charge they are going to enjoy themselves. It is hard enough to stop people disputing about title when they have to pay out of their own pockets, but if the State is going to pay it will be impossible to stop them disputing. It becomes a sport.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously this question because it is setting up an entirely new precedent. I have nothing to say, under the system under which we operate, of acquiring property and paying the costs of the persons whose land is being acquired —it has long been the custom to do so—but to introduce at this date a new incidence of expense in the acquisition of land or of mining royalties or any other forms of property, is wholly unjustified and can only have arisen from pressure put by these interests upon the Government. It really is time that this Government which one sees arrayed on the Front Bench had a little more of what is vulgarly called guts, and that on this little matter of costs should stand up against these vested interests and tell them that they refuse to create a new precedent just because they demand it as the owners of royalties. I hope the Minister, if he is really going on with what now appears to be a perfectly futile piece of waste paper, will at least guard the people of the country from this further imposition in the interests of vested proprietors.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In the earlier part of the discussion hon. Members anticipated that the reply would be made by the Attorney-General—

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have sat in the House during the whole of the Debate but I do not know why it should have induced hon. Members to think that I was going to reply.

Mr. Ede: After hearing the reply of the President of the Board of Trade they will

probably feel that their logic is right even if their prophecy is wrong. Those of us who are not lawyers feel a little discomfort after the speeches of the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade. The Secretary for Mines in explaining the Bill was careful to tell us that he was not a lawyer, and the President of the Board of Trade in the course of his numerous sallies with the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) took pride in the fact that he shared with the majority of hon. Members the advantage of not being a lawyer. I do not know what most laymen feel about this Bill, but after the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and the obvious discomfort of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the various questions addressed to him, I feel that we ought to have some guidance from one of the Law Officers with regard to the points which have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade, almost casually, that this registration would not bind either the royalty owners or the Government when we come to consider the final Bill, puts an entirely new complexion on what we are doing to-day.
What will royalty owners feel after this announcement? Why should there be any statement of registration at all, when if the statement of registration makes it rather awkward for the Government, they may repudiate the basis on which they have been going and introduce an entirely fresh basis altogether? I hove the President of the Board of Trade will realise that those who came here with the best feelings in the world towards the Bill, who do not share the opinions of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who anticipated that the Second Reading would be more or less a formal affair, have been given cause for grave misgivings by what he has said, and by the criticism that has been made of it. If the Front Bench opposite feel that their lips are sealed, there is always the unpaid legal adviser of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who generally comes to their assistance and who, I have no doubt, will be duly rewarded for it in good time. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will hasten the good time a little bit,


if neither of the hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Bench feels called upon to reply, by giving us his views on the rightness or wrongness of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said. I do not think the Government can expect us to accept as satisfactory the position we have now reached.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: We seem to have been brought into an extraordinary position. I have read the proceedings on this Bill in another place and I have studied the Bill. It was not until the right hon. Gentleman made his speech that we were brought into this extraordinary position. I think the House is entitled to know what is the purpose of this Bill. We have had too much trouble with this sort of Bill already. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor brought in a Bill which he did not understand; it was emasculated, and then had to be withdrawn hurriedly. We now have another Bill which apparently is equally futile. Is it eyewash? Is it that something was put in the Government's election address and in the King's Speech, and that now something has to be done about it? We took up the line that the Bill was a genuine attempt to do what the Government felt it was best to do. We had made up our mind not to oppose the Bill, but if we do not get a better explanation, we shall nave to oppose it.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I can reply only by leave of the House. I waited until everybody had risen to speak, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition was in the House while I was making the speech of which he complained. I wish to make it clear to the House that this is not an

"eyewash" Bill. There is no intention of considering this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, as fulfilling the pledge of the Government. The Prime Minister has already stated that the major Bill will be introduced next Session. I think it was clear to every hon. Member that it could not be introduced during this Session, and that meant that there would be an interval of two or three months. The Government felt that during that time it would be a good thing to get together as much information as possible, and thereby shorten the process in the long run. Nobody pretends that a Bill of this sort, which is preliminary to the main Bill, can be conclusive in character. We believe that the passage of this Bill, which will enable the register to be set up and the next three months to be used in getting information, will save time when the major Bill is introduced and passed.

Mr. Attlee: I gather that this register is not to be conclusive on anything. That is the cause of the trouble.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that under the terms of this Bill the owners will have six months in which to register these claims. We hope and believe that the major Bill will be the law of the land before those six months have passed. What I meant by the statement I made was that if a royalty owner rushes in and is first to register, when the major Bill is passed, he will have an opportunity of making any amendment of the particulars that he has supplied. The House will realise that there is no obligation and no inducement to anybody to register in under six months, and we hope and believe that before that time has passed the major Bill will be through.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 118.

Division No. 281.]
AYES.
[6.49 p.m.


Acland-Treyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Bernays, R. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Albery, Sir Irving
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Channon, H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Brass, Sir W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Christie, J. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Bull, B. B.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butcher, H. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Butler, R. A.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)




Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Sir I.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salt, E. W


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lees-Jones, J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Do Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Simmonds, O. E.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Drewe, C.
Loftus, P. C.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spens, W. P.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Magnay, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fildes, Sir H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Furness, S. N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Train, Sir J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morgan, R. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wakefield, W. W.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Grigg, Sir E. W. M
Nall, Sir J. Ward,
Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Guy, J. C. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hannah, I. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Watt, G. S. H.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Harbord, A.
Peake, O.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Harvey,' T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Peat, C. U.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hepworth, J.
Pilkington, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wise, A. R.


Higgs, W. F.
Procter, Major H. A.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wragg, H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Major R. H.



Hume, Sir G. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sir George Davies and Mr. Cross.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.


Adamson, W. M.
Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Foot, D. M.
Leonard, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Frankel, D.
Leslie, J. R.


Barnes, A. J.
Gallacher, W.
Logan, D. G.


Barr, J.
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Batey, J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacLaren, A.


Broad, F. A.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.


Bromfield, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Griffiths, C. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maxton, J.


Burke, W. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.


Cape, T.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Chater, D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Holdsworth, H.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Jagger, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.


Dalton, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, J.


Davies, Rt. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J. A.







Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Simpson, F. B.
Viant, S. P.


Pritt, D. N.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Walker, J.


Ridley, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, B.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watson, W. McL.


Ritson, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stephen C.
White, H. Graham


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Rowson, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Sanders, W. S.
Thorne, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sexton. T. M.
Thurtle, E.



Silkin, L.
Tinker, J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Lords Amendments to page 5, line 8, agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Cross.]

Orders of the Day — COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the ascertainment and registration of particulars as to proprietary interests in unworked coal and mines of coal, and in certain associated minerals, property, and rights in land, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshank.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made. and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Livestock Advisory Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 19, leave out "who," and insert "which."

7.2 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments which follow are purely of a drafting and verbal character.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I on these purely drafting Amendments—because we shall be passing entirely from this Section of the Bill—be allowed to ask a question of the Minister as to whether he is now able to announce to the House what steps he proposes to take with regard to the setting up of an impartial Livestock Commission?

7.3 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Livestock Commission will be set up as soon as authority has been given by Parliament for its selection, and the idea is that it shall include the members of the present Cattle Committee plus the additional members who fall to be appointed. We hope that it will be possible to set it in operation by 1st August.

Mr. Alexander: On a point of Order. The difficulty is this: I can quite see your reaction to the matter. Apparently some announcement has been made in the other place on this matter, and has not been made to this House.

Mr. Speaker: This is not in order here.

Mr. Alexander: May we raise it on the Third Reading? But then we have had the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker: The Third Reading has gone.

Mr. Alexander: We are in a difficulty here.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Subsidy to producers of fat cattle.)

CLAUSE 5.—(Subsidy arrangements.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 33, after "purposes," insert,
and generally for securing that subsidy payments are, properly made,

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to secure that the subsidy scheme may also provide for other matters of a minor and incidental character such as the marking of certified animals.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Regulations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 9, leave out from "that" to "if," in line 10, and insert,
no subsidy payment shall be made in respect of any animal or carcass.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that this and all the Amendments down to the bottom of the page raise the question of privilege. They deal with the regulations under which the subsidy is payable. The House can accept them or not.

Mr. Morrison: This Amendment and the next Amendments are intended to make it clear that the provisions of regulations under Clause 6, which enable Ministers to withhold payments to certain classes of animals and to prescribe how the weight of an animal shall be computed, shall be applied to carcases also.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Speaking as only one Member of this House, I view with increasing concern the growing tendency on the part of another place to put in Amendments of a financial character. This has happened on far more occasions during the past 12 months than it happened in four years in my previous experience of this House, and my anxiety in this direction is not allayed by the attitude which the Minister has taken towards a similar constitutional point which was raised on the power of the House of Lords to veto financial proposals by Resolution. I have put on the Paper a Motion asking for the total number and the titles of the Statutes in which that power is given to another place, and although it would be out of order

to pursue that here, I think that it is time someone raised a protest against this habit on the part of another place of interfering with the powers and privileges of this House. Speaking for myself, if this practice continues I shall be at great pains to oppose it.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: If we were dealing entirely with the constitutional point which my hon. Friend has raised, I think that there would be strong unanimous opinion on this side behind him. I think that the real point is that these are important alterations in the administration of the scheme which we are surprised the Government did not anticipate before the Bill left this House. These Amendments are required in order to put the payment of the subsidy on a sound basis, but it is rather to be deplored that such a long and important series of Amendments should not first be submitted to the House of Commons.

7.9 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: All these questions of mixed finance and administration arise in questions of this character with varying emphasis. Here, although there is a financial bearing which raises the question of Privilege, all that the Amendment does really is to make an administrative change which, I think, it is generally agreed is for the better. I apologise to the House for the fact that this House did not see the necessity for the Amendment previously, but I think that we ought to accept this and the following Amendments.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 19, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In line 37, leave out from the beginning to "that," in line 39, and insert:

"(a) In the case of a male animal, that by reason of late or ineffective castration the animal shows the physical characteristics of bulls, or
(b) in the case of a female animal."

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The point here is to rule out from the subsidy animals which by reason of late or ineffective castration do not give steer


beef but inferior beef. In some cases, the age limit fails to exclude undesirable animals, or excludes desirable animals.
Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Special entries will be made in the Journals of the House that the Amendments raise the question of Privilege.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Transitional operation and repeal, of Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 14, leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2) and insert:
(1) Section four of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1934, shall cease to have effect at the beginning of the appointed day, and the functions of the Committee appointed under that Section shall, in relation to the arrangements mentioned in Section two of the said Act, be discharged, on and after the appointed day, by the Commission.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege. It arises from the alteration in the appointed day.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As Mr. Speaker said, this Amendment arises from an alteration in the appointed day. Owing to the time over which this Bill has occupied the House, it has not been found possible to name an appointed day earlier than 1st August. As a consequence, there is no overlapping between the end of the operation of the present Emergency Provisions Acts of 1934 and 1936 and the present Bill. Under those Acts animals have to be sold on or before 31st July, 1937, to be eligible for the subsidy. There is no overlapping in time, because the appointed day is 1st August, and when one provision for a subsidy ceases to have effect the other comes into operation immediately. It is still necessary to make provision for the payment of subsidy in the case of animals or carcases which were sold before 1st August, 1937, but were not certified until that date or after. It would not be necessary to have such an Amendment if there were not a change in the authority charged with the payment of the subsidy, but the

Cattle Committee is to go out of existence and is to be succeeded by the Livestock Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 41, leave out "as amended by this Section."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Speaker: I have to point out to the House that this Amendment and that in page 10, line 13, raise questions of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

CLAUSE II.—(Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of livestock and meat.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 13, at the end, insert:
(4) nothing in the preceding provisions of this Section shall authorise the Board of Trade to regulate the importation of bacon.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

7.14 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Why is there this Amendment denying the President of the Board of Trade the power to regulate imports of bacon—not that we are desirous that he shall have that power—when the Board of Trade are already regulating the import of bacon to the extent of 5,000,000 cwt. per annum compared with 1933 imports? It seems rather ridiculous that this Amendment should be embodied in the Bill when the President of the Board of Trade is already exercising the power which is refused to him in this Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is nothing new in this. In the Bill as it stood "meat" for the purposes of this part of the Act did not include bacon. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Definition Clause in the Bill as it left the House —it was then Clause 56—he will see what the position was then. All that has happened is that instead of excluding bacon in the Definition Clause, the exclusion of the power to regulate bacon has been moved up to the relevant part of the Bill. This Amendment therefore is


purely drafting in character. The reason for the exclusion in the original Bill was that it would be inconvenient to have two sources of authority in regulating the importation of bacon. Under the present law it is conditional on a marketing scheme being in existence.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: We are in a position of some difficulty because a statement was made by the Minister recently to the effect that he hoped to make some announcement with regard to the policy of the Government in relation to bacon. There are several ways in which that policy may be directed. It may mean such an alteration in the bacon marketing scheme that this Livestock Commission may be entrusted with the impartial administration of the bacon scheme. Yet by this Amendment we are specifically taking away from the Livestock Commission a power which may be required, although I hope it will not be required. We are much handicapped when we get an announcement made in regard to a policy like this in another place, while we have had no word of it here. This also affects to some extent the actual constitution of the Commission.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Speaking again by leave of the House, may I say that I understand the preoccupation which the right hon. Gentleman has in regard to this matter, but I would point out that for the purposes of our present discussion the actual position in regard to regulation is not changed by the Amendment. As the Bill left this House it contained precisely the same provisions as to regulation which are now re-expressed in these new words. As regards agreeing or disagreeing with the Amendment, the House may be assured that there is nothing but a verbal change.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page II, line 22, agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(General regulation of holding of livestock markets.)

Lords Amendment: In page II line 24, leave out "August" and insert "November."

7.19 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment arises from the postponement of the appointed day. The Commission will have to consult with the Livestock Advisory Committee and other bodies, and in consequence of the postponement of the appointed day it is necessary to allow them extra time for these consultations.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page II line 37, after "thereof" insert:
or for the purpose of effecting at the farm sales of livestock on any occasion in respect of which special exemption of the farm from the operation of this subsection may be granted by the Commission.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It refers to sales of commercial stock which take place from time to time on farms where the occupier is not an outgoing tenant and where the stock includes stock which is neither the occupier's own stock nor agisted stock. It provides that such sales may be exempted by the Commission on receiving an application from the occupier of the farm. An exchange of letters will be sufficient to secure the exemption. When the Bill was previously in this House this subject caused a great deal of discussion and perplexity. It was the general opinion of hon. Members that we ought to try to find words which would ensure that the Commission would have full power over genuine markets, but at the same time it was felt that certain classes of sales incidental to farming should be exempt. For example, one of these was the case in which an owner of pedigree stock had a periodical sale on his land and where, in order to give the sale a better appearance, additional stock might be brought in from other farms to take advantage of the presence of buyers on that occasion. We tried to find general words which would define accurately what was a market and what was the sort of occasional sale which ought to be exempted. We found it impossible to do so, but in another place this Amendment has been accepted which will make it easy and simple for genuine bona fide sales of


the character I have mentioned to be exempted without an order, but merely by the permission of the Commission.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: From the Committee stage of this Bill onwards to the Third Reading we objected to any extension of these exemptions which would have a tendency to sidestep the central marketing scheme. All kinds of Amendments were moved to exempt this kind of sale and that kind of sale, and I am not sure that we welcomed the exemptions which were already in the Bill when it left this House. This Amendment from another place widens the facilities for sales at farms as distinct from the central market which is to be set up under the terms of the Measure. Exactly what kind of sale is contemplated here? Whose cattle are to be sold and on whose farm are they to he sold? We argued in Committee that if sales of this kind were exempted there would be nothing to prevent farmers from two or even from ten farms in a district sending their cattle to one farm, applying for an exemption order and conducting a sale on that farm—it might be on John Brown's farm to-day and on Brown John's farm a month hence—and to that extent the central marketing scheme would be short-circuited.
The body which is to grant these exemptions is a commission, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander) said, we have no idea of who are to constitute the commission or how they are to be appointed. All we know is that they are to have certain powers under this Measure. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied us as to the kind of sale contemplated in this Amendment. Certain exemptions are already provided for in Clause 14. This is an addition to them, and despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not see a great deal of difference between the words which are now proposed and the words which were proposed in Committee except that the term "pedigree cattle" is omitted. But the same sort of principle is in this Amendment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the kind of cattle likely to be brought to these farms where sales are held and the places from which they are likely to be brought for specially exempted sales. Then we shall better understand the reason for the exemption.

At the moment I do not know what sort of special sales these are to be, but it seems likely that they will short-circuit the marketing scheme. They will ultimately be to the advantage of the farmers on whose farms they take place, though they may be to the detriment of those farmers who are transacting their business through the central scheme. We would like some information on that point and also as to the kind of people who are to constitute the commission which is to grant these exemptions.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As to the kind of people who will constitute the commission, they will be for the most part the Cattle Committee, who have administered the emergency legislation, I think, to the satisfaction of the House and of the entire community affected by their operations. This body will retain control. There is no question of their being short-circuited. They have to say whether an application to exempt a particular sale should be granted or not. I think the real question is whether or not the premises in respect of which an application is made are being regularly or frequently used for this purpose. Clearly there is a point at which an "occasional" sale may become so regular and so periodical that it develops into a market, and in such a case the commission, having been charged by this House with the control of markets, would refuse permission. At the same time, these occasional sales do exist, and it would be a hardship to the agricultural community to ring those sales round with too many restrictions.
We have already provided that where a sale takes place on the occasion of a change of tenancy different farmers other than the outgoing tenant may bring their cattle to that farm to take advantage of the concourse of buyers attracted by the dispersal sale. There are occasions other than that of a change of tenancy on which a periodical sale of this character may take place. I have already given one example, namely, the case of the sale of a pedigree herd. In such a case there is no change of tenancy, but a man may desire to get rid of a herd which has won a reputation either because he wants the money or for some other reason. The sale of such a herd naturally attracts to those premises for the time


being a large number of buyers, anxious to take advantage of the opportunity and to bid against each other for the stock. It is a common thing for farmers who have other stock in neighbouring farms, purely of a commercial character—not necessarily pedigree stock but any kind of stock—to make an arrangement with their neighbour and to have their stock moved on to his land and have them bid for by the buyers who are gathered together there. It is a very harmless practice, and, if watched by the Commissioners, as it will be watched, it cannot possibly give rise to any grievance. I quite see that one can imagine a case where a practice of this sort hardens into a market, but for the Commission to grant permission in such a case would clearly be for it to disable itself of market control. I think we can leave it to the Commission with confidence to decide on the proper cases in which to grant this occasional privilege and to refuse that privilege when, as I say, regularity hardens these sales into a market.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: There seems to be a certain amount of sweet reasonableness in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and yet there is enough in the Amend-

ment and in what he says at least to leave some suspicion in the minds of some of us that the points that were pressed by my hon. Friend in Committee have been got round. The actual wording of the Amendment is very wide indeed, because it gives power to the Commission to exempt any such sales "on any occasion." It is left to them completely, and I gathered from the Minister in his explanation—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—that in fact such permission would never be withheld unless it was shown that a sale was being made a regular market. That makes it even wider still, and I have some recollection in the earlier Debates that my hon. Friends mentioned that there could be collusion between the farmers in a district. How often does a man or a group of farmers in a district need to make such application before the single farm in the group becomes a place which can be termed a market? These words are likely to be destructive of the purpose which my hon. Friends on the Committee stage had in mind, and if that is so, I do not think we ought to accept it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 100.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[7.33 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Grimston, R. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Aske, Sir R. W.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Guy, J. C. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Craven-Ellis, W.
Hannah, I. C.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crooke, J. S.
Harbord, A.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cross, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hepworth, J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Higgs, W. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Bernays, R. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Holdsworth, H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Denville, Alfred
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brass, Sir W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunter, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Elliot, Rt. Hon, W. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Cary, R. A.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Chorlton, A. E. L
Fildes, Sir H.
Kimball, L.


Christie, J. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Latham, Sir P.


Cobb,Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)




Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Lewis, O.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Liddall, W. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lloyd, G. W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Marquess of


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wakefield, W. W.


McKie, J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Magnay, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rowlands, G.
Watt, G. S. H.


Markham, S. F.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salt, E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)


Morgan, R. H.
Savery, Sir Servington
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wise, A. R.


Nall, Sir J.
Simmonds, O. E.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Peaks, O.
Spans, W. P.



Perkins, W. R. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Petherick, M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barr, J
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Messer, F.
Wedgwood, R1. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 41, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Livestock markets orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, leave out "those," and insert "any such."

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sub-section (2) of Clause 15 as it left this House provided that the Commission should notify bodies representative of local authorities and other affected interests of any proposal to draft a livestock markets order, and, so far as local authorities are concerned, the Commission no doubt would notify the national associations of local authorities, which would in most cases communicate with their constituent bodies. But it is also desirable that the Commission should be able to consult,


and should consult, any ad hoc bodies which may be set up representative of local authorities in and around the area proposed to be controlled. As the Bill left this House the relevant lines read:
and shall give those bodies"—
that is, those bodies that have been notified—
a reasonable opportunity of making to the Commission representations.
While it did not preclude the Commission from consulting bodies other than those notified, the Bill did not impose the duty on them to do it, and it is thought that that duty should be imposed upon them. The Amendment will ensure that the Commission will in fact consult any ad hoc bodies.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment in page 13, line 37, agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Matters for which provision may be made by livestock markets orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 26, after "respects," to insert "particular occasions or."

7.42 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is connected with that made to Clause 14, page II, line 37, of the Bill, and makes it clear that where a livestock markets order makes provision for exemption from the requirement that no premises other than approved market premises shall be used for the holding of livestock markets, these exemptions can relate to farm sales held on particular occasions as well as to particular classes of sales. It means that areas which are controlled by livestock markets orders can be treated in a uniform manner with areas which are not so controlled.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 16, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Apportionment of liabilities incurred in connection with livestock markets orders by owners of market premises.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 16, and insert:

Where, by virtue of a livestock markets order, the owner of any premises incurs any liability—

(a) to make any payment (whether to the Commission or to any other person) on account of the cost of making any alteration of those premises which has been required by the Commission to be made, or
(b) to make contributions to the Commission in respect of those premises."

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House, doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause to which this Amendment relates permitted an owner of market premises to apply for the apportionment of liabilities incurred under a livestock markets order which required him to make alterations to his premises. It was not quite clear that under paragraph (1) of this Clause the provisions for apportionment extended to cases where alterations were carried out by the Commission in default, and this Amendment makes it clear that such liability could in fact be apportioned.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: in page 18, line 28, at the end, insert:
(2) Where, under any livestock markets order, any sum is recoverable by the Commission from a person in respect of any such liability as aforesaid incurred by him as being the owner of any premises, and that person proves that he—

(a) is receiving any rent of the premises merely as agent or trustee for some other person, and
(b) has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole of the demand of the Commission,

his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has or has had in his hands as aforesaid, but the Commission may, if they are or would be debarred by the preceding provisions of this subsection from recovering the whole of the said sum from an agent or trustee, recover the whole or any unpaid balance thereof from the person on whose behalf the agent or trustee receives the rent.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause to which this is an Amendment deals with the apportionment of liability in connection with livestock


markets orders by owners of market premises. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit in certain circumstances the liability which a person may incur who owns a market in the capacity of agent or trustee. Although it limits his liability to the amount of money whch he has or has had in his hands, it does not in any way debar the Commission from receiving the remainder of the sums due to it from the owner or the person whom the trustee is representing.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 21, after Clause 20, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Delegation to Commission of certain functions under Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts.)
A. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, may by order delegate to the Commission all or any of the functions which are exercisable in relation to markets by the said Minister or Department under the following enactments, that is to say:—
Section nine of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, as amended by section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to grant exemption, in respect of particular markets, from the obligation to provide facilities for weighing cattle);
Section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, (which requires suitable accommodation for weighing cattle to be provided to the satisfaction of the said Minister or Department at markets other than those exempted by his or their order);
Section four of the said Act of 1891, as amended by section two of the said Act of 1926 (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at any particular market from the requirements of the said section four in respect of the sale of cattle);
Sub-section (4) of section one of the said Act of 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at particular markets from the requirements of that section in respect of the offering of cattle for sale);
and any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Although this new Clause looks formidable, it is almost self-explanatory. It

will enable certain functions which are at present exercised by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, 1887 to 1926, to be delegated to the Livestock Commission. Under those Acts weighing facilities are required to be provided at markets in certain circumstances unless they are exempted. Under Clause 16 of this Bill a Livestock Markets Order may provide inter alia for the service of notices by the Commission requiring improvements to be effected to market premises which might include weighing facilities. In respect of areas where such orders are in operation there might be a certain amount of duplication of functions because the Commission might require weighing facilities to be provided under such a notice. It is desirable that the responsibility for such a decision should rest with one authority only, and as it may be some time before livestock markets orders apply to more than a limited area of the country, I do not think the House will think it desirable that two authorities should exercise the same functions in respect of different parts of the country. Therefore, it is thought that the best method of meeting that position is the delegation when required of Ministerial functions to the Commission in order to avoid the overlapping and duplication that I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: This new Clause raises a question of Privilege in that it transfers certain charges from the Treasury to the Cattle Fund.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We do not object to that transfer, but I am not concerned with that here. May I ask whether there is likely to be any confusion between the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, the Ministry of Agriculture here and the Commission, or do we understand that the Commission will have absolute authority to carry out the functions referred to in this new Clause, and that neither of the two Departments will intervene once the power is handed on to the Commission?

7.50 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is nothing in this suggested Clause which will tend in any way towards confusion. Indeed, its purpose is to prevent confusion by


preventing two people doing the same thing at the same time. The statutory powers to which my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions referred are themselves in no way altered by this new Clause. Further, the final responsibility for the exercise of the powers contained in the Weighing of Cattle Acts still remains with the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, because a delegating order can be varied or revoked. It is thought that when the Commission is active its agents will be in the markets, and it may be found a matter of administrative convenience for these two State Departments to delegate some of their powers to the Commission. If the Ministry or the Department did delegate their powers they would not then exercise them.
Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 16, after "payment" insert "or an allowance of an amount."

7.52 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We are now in the part of the Bill which deals with slaughtering. It was provided in the Bill that certain slaughtering charges could be made and that the slaughter-house itself might acquire certain offals. It is thought that many people who send their beasts to the slaughter-house might find it administratively more convenient that what they are entitled to receive for the by-products should be set off against the charges for slaughtering rather than that the full fee should be paid and then a refund made. Without this Amendment it would not be possible for the books to be kept in that way.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 23.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill first came before the House this Clause provided that not only the central slaughter-house. but also those slaughter-houses which were to continue to function in the area of the scheme when the scheme came into operation, should contribute towards the expenses incurred by the Commission in compensating owners of slaughter-houses that were closed. During the passage of the Bill upstairs, the Clause was amended so as to provide that compensation for closed slaughter-houses should be paid direct by the central slaughter-house authority and for the liability to contribute to the Commission's expenses to be limited to the central slaughter-house authority only. In consequence of that, it is thought that sub-paragraph (k) (ii) providing for arbitration in the event of disputes as to what is payable by way of levy becomes of less significance because compensation, will no longer be met by a levy on a number of slaughter-houses. Had that state of affairs remained, it would no doubt have been necessary and desirable for arbitration to be available, but it has gone and, therefore, it is thought that the next sub-paragraph, which provided for the reference to arbitration "of disputes as to any such other matters as may be specified in the scheme" is sufficient to include the limited subject matter of subparagraph (ii).

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am afraid I have not quite grasped the whole reason for this Amendment. I had in mind the possibility that a local authority or some other interest may submit a draft scheme, the whole essence of which will depend on the fixed charges in the scheme to be levied upon those using the abattoir in order to meet the charges on the capital involved. I cannot say that there is any good reason for deleting those words. I do not think it is to be assumed that there will be any such dispute arising as that specified in sub-paragraph (ii). I am not yet clear in what way the Amendment passed in Committee renders the words unnecessary. At any rate, I cannot see that they do any harm, and it may be a safeguard to those who may be responsible for submitting a draft scheme.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am afraid that it is my fault I did not make the matter clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The position before the Bill went upstairs was


this. The compensation for closed slaughter-houses fell not only on the central slaughter-house, but also upon such slaughter-houses as were left to function in the area of the scheme after the scheme began. During the passage of the Bill upstairs it was decided that the Clause should be amended to provide that compensation for the closed slaughterhouses should be paid direct by the central slaughter-house authority; in other words, it would be unnecessary to put a levy on the remaining slaughter-houses, but the contribution would come direct and solely from the central slaughter-house. As sub-paragraph (k) (ii) provided for reference to arbitration of disputes as to whether any sum is payable by any person by way of levy, it becomes unnecessary and no advantage is obtained by leaving it in. Sub-paragraph (iii) is now considered wide enough to include everything contained in the scheme about which reference to arbitration might be required.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 12, leave out "is," and insert "are."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: A series of Amendments on page 25 raise questions of Privilege as they extend the powers of local authorities and so might affect the rates.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Some time or another we ought to make up our mind whether a collective body is plural or singular. Many of them are singular. If we look at this Bill we find on page 8 that the Commons House of Parliament is a singular body. In the second line it says, "on which that House has sat," instead of "have sat." On page 10 Parliament is also collectively regarded as a singular body, because it refers in line II to, "Parliament is dissolved," not "Parliament are dissolved." When we come to the Commission on page 12, line 15, they are a plural body, and when we come to the Board of Trade it is also plural, although it consists of only one person. "Local authority" in this Clause is changed by a Lords Amendment from

a singular to a plural body. On grammatical grounds it does not matter whether we call a local authority singular or plural, but in Parliamentary draftsmanship we ought to make up our minds once and for all whether a body, a committee, a commission, Parliament or local authority are to be regarded as plural or singular bodies. Acts of Parliament ought to be consistent in this matter, but in this Bill we have two cases where a collective body is singular and two where is plural and one where it changes from being a singular body to a plural body. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, who before he became Minister was a distinguished lawyer, will express his view on this question of draftsmanship.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment does not raise the question of Privilege. The question of Privilege is concerned with the four Amendments which follow.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not know that I am an authority on the vexed question of grammar. There is authority for both versions. I do not think this is a matter of such substance that we ought to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Alexander: I really think that "local authority are" is very bad English, and I shall be very much surprised if the Minister of Agriculture is so ungrammatical as to agree with the Lords Amendment. Having regard to some of the English which I read in a report of a recent Debate in another place on the Marriage Bill I am not astonished at a mistake in number of this kind, but I hope that we shall not agree with it.

Mr. Sanders: I think the House will recollect that a collective noun is singular when it is used collectively and is plural when it is used distributively.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 14, leave out "and carry on."

8.2 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment has to be considered in conjunction with the Amendments which immediately follow. The Clause to which they relate gives power to a


local authority to provide and carry on a slaughter-house. It was always intended that if a local authority provides a slaughter-house it should be open to it to leave the carrying on of the business to some other body who, perhaps, might take the building under a lease. Some doubts have been raised as to the power of local authorities to provide and lease a building in these circumstances, and for that reason the Amendment is suggested.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: A local authority will still retain the power to own and to run a central abattoir, which is essentially the object of the Bill, but in another place they still suspect municipal socialism of any kind and have therefore transformed the Clause into one which also gives power to a local authority to purchase an abattoir but to let it out to a public utility society or some cooperative body. It is typical of another place to express in every way its suspicion of any possible efforts in municipal socialism.
Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 23, agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Service Schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 7, leave out "engaged in" and insert concerned with."

8.5 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We have now reached that part of the Bill which provides for service schemes in connection with the livestock industry, and one body of persons connected with that industry who are anxious to avail themselves of the facilities to join in this part of the Bill are auctioneers. There was some doubt whether it could be said that auctioneers were "engaged in" the industry, and so the wider words "concerned with" are substituted in order to put it beyond any doubt that auctioneers may, if they like, use the provisions of this part of the Bill for service schemes for their own purpose.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I have very grave doubts about this Amendment. The Clause as it left this House was perfectly good and showed clearly who were the persons who were to be regarded as entitled to put forward service schemes, but if we put the words "concerned with" into the Bill, Heaven only knows who will be given a right to bring up such schemes. It is all very well for the Minister to say that this alteration is made specifically to include auctioneers, but there may be all sorts of people who are "concerned with" an industry whenever they like to represent that they are concerned with it. I think this is a most objectionable Amendment. My hon. Friends on this side are all in favour of sound service schemes, but the schemes ought to be submitted by those who really are engaged in the industry. That was the whole object of the Clause. I do not believe that the Minister, able lawyer as he is, can get up and say that these words "concerned with" do not widen the Clause to such an extent that many other people besides auctioneers may be given a right to submit schemes. Moreover, I am not so much in love with the connection of auctioneers with the sale of cattle that I want the Clause to be specially widened in order that they may submit schemes. The whole object of a service scheme is to promote the general interests of the industry as an industry, and I think it would do so if we could wipe out auctioneers from it altogether.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can speak again only by leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's fear is that under the wider expression "concerned with" many more people will be able to submit schemes to the Commission. I do not know whether that will prove to be actually the case, because they have to prove that they are "concerned with" one or more of the following activities:
the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock.
That is the context into which these new words will now fit. Of course the Commission have to consult the Livestock Advisory Committee, and will retain the right to disapprove of any scheme, and therefore, even if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that


this does enlarge the number of persons who can apply for a scheme, though they may apply, they may not get it. I think it is better to be on the safe side and to make sure that this body of men who want to take advantage of this part of the Bill are not excluded.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: "Take advantage" is the right phrase.

Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid that I take a slightly different point of view on this Amendment from that of my right hon. Friend. I should object to the auctioneer coming in at all if he were to become a drag against service schemes. If we were to increase the number of people who are regarded as substantially representative of the interests concerned and that prevented service schemes coming into existence, I should say that auctioneers ought to be left out. As auctioneers have been definitely and specifically referred to, I should like to ask whether they will not only have the power of initiation but the power to become a drag upon a service scheme. Only when persons substantially representative of the interest concerned demand such a scheme can a scheme come into existence. It may be that a large number of the persons interested want a service scheme, but the auctioneers, for reasons best known to themselves, do not, and therefore may become a drag on the progress of the Measure. Further, I should like to ask whether any considerable body of consumers have the power of initiating a service scheme or suggesting it to the Commission.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Again I can speak only by the leave of the House. The hon. Member asks whether this Amendment would allow auctioneers to become a drag on a service scheme. No, Sir, it would not. It does not really alter the position at all in that way. The real point is that in order to submit a service scheme there would have to be a class of person submitting it—or a body representing them—engaged in the marketing of livestock. It may be that it could be argued that an auctioneer was not "engaged in" the marketing of livestock, because he acts for both buyers and sellers, but "concerned with" does let him in. Of course one cannot have a scheme initiated without the assent of the majority of persons who are affected, and if it appears to the Commission that there is such assent, there is

no danger of the auctioneers proving to be a drag. The hon. Member's second question was whether consumers can in any way promote a service scheme. The Clause, if it is amended in the way proposed, will read:
On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons concerned with one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale, and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock.
Consumers might claim that they are users of livestock, but I do not know how many vegetarians would object to that claim; I imagine, however, that that form of use would not be entitled to a service scheme.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 31, line 2, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 15, at the end, insert:
"(4) A service scheme for the improvement of breeding of livestock shall, if it contains provisions whereby livestock kept or approved by or on behalf of the authorised body may be made available for breeding, be of no effect unless it also—

(a) specifies the breed or breeds of livestock which may be so kept or approved, and
(b) is so framed as to secure that no person other than a person carrying on the business of keeping livestock of the said breed or breeds shall be liable to contribute under the scheme towards defraying any expenses of the authorised body."

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment to ensure that a service scheme for the improvement of the breeding of livestock shall specify the breed or breeds with which the scheme is concerned, and to provide that nobody will be liable to contribute under such a scheme towards the expenses of the authorised body unless that person is engaged in keeping livestock of the particular breed or breeds specified in the scheme. It would prevent a Red Poll breeder being compelled to contribute towards Shorthorns, or a Shorthorn breeder to contribute towards Red Polls. The principle is, Shorthorn breeders contribute to Shorthorns and Red Poll


breeders to Red Polls. Breeders are not liable for any contribution towards a scheme which they have not promoted.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Does that mean that there will be a series of these service schemes, for the Red Poll, the black bull and all the other breeds? Are we to understand that there will be schemes for every breed?

Mr. Morrison: I sincerely hope that if the breeding industry finds it necessary, that will be so. The real object at which this Amendment is aimed is to prevent the person who is interested in one aspect of the breeding of livestock from having to contribute to a service scheme established primarily in the interests of another breed. It would mean that the man who is interested in Guernsey cattle and in continuing the breed of that cattle should not have to contribute to a scheme for, say, Friesians.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 35, line 16, agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(The fund for purposes of this Act, and payments to be made thereto and therefrom.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 3, leave out Sub-section (3).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that a question of Privilege is raised in this Amendment.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Sub-section which it is now proposed to leave out relates to a contingency which will not now arise. As I told the House upon an earlier Amendment, there was an expectation that payment would be made not later than the end of June. This would have meant a long period of time to wait until the Estimates were passed, and in such a long period the Civil Contingencies Fund might not have been a sufficient standby to fill up the gap. This provision was inserted in the Bill to enable the Treasury to step in with the resources of the Consolidated Fund. The postponement of the appointed day means that there is no difficulty at all about any

interim sum that may be required being borne upon the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the reason for the Sub-section therefore ceases to exist.
Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 37, line 30, agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Apportionment of expenses of Commission.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 34, at the end, insert:
and for the purposes of this Section, any payment made out of the Fund under Subsection (6) of the last but one preceding Section shall be deemed to form part of the expenses lawfully incurred by the Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a Privilege Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of the Amendment is merely drafting, and to make clear the financial arrangements; in particular, to make clear the allocation of expenses to the various funds. It is purely a technical drafting matter and raises no point or any change of substance from the Bill as it left the House.
Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 41, agreed to.

Mr. Alexander: It is not treating the House properly. There ought to be explanation of these changes.
Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 2, after Clause 47, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.)
B.—(1) Any order or scheme under this Act may make provision for such matters as are incidental and supplementary to any of the matters for which provision is made by the order or scheme by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, orders, regulations and schemes under this Act shall be deemed not to be statutory rules to which that Section applies.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I will explain these alterations to the right hon. Gentleman. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Clause 47 have been left out. That was a drafting Amendment. We now have to insert this new Clause. What has happened really is that this is a re-draft. It splits up into two Clauses the subject matter of Clause 47. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of that Clause become the new Clause B, and Sub-section (2) of that Clause, dealing with compensation of local authority officers or servants, now stands by itself. All that has been done has been to disentangle the matter by splitting it up.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 45, line 6, agreed to.

CLAUSE 55.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 22, leave out from "Any," to the end of line 24, and insert:
sums payable by a local authority by way of a levy imposed under a slaughter-house scheme to defray the expenses incurred by the Commission in the preparation, promotion or operation of the scheme.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It will be seen, from a comparison of the Bill as it left this House with the Lords Amendment, that the Amendment merely makes a verbal alteration, which improves the clarity of expression. It simply makes more explicit the power to defray these expenses. It is purely a matter of language, and I think the House will agree that the new words are clearer than the old.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 47, line 23, agreed to.

CLAUSE 56.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 33, leave out from "be," to the end of line 35, and insert:
the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have to point out that a question of Privilege arises on this Amendment.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I have already said, it was expected that we should have the appointed day for the purpose of these subsidy payments at a date before the end of June this year, but our expectations have been disappointed in that regard, and now the appointed day is to be 1st August. It is our hope that the subsidy will be available for producers of fat cattle at the earliest moment after the Measure receives the Royal Assent, and the purpose of the Amendment is merely to postpone the date.
Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 50, line 37, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 15, at the end, insert:
and every other person being a member of the English sub-committee, the Scottish sub-committee or the Welsh sub-committee.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Amendment is to apply the provisions of the Second Schedule, which lay down conditions of appointment, to the additional representative persons who are appointed members of sub-committees and who are not members of the main Committee.

Mr. Alexander: Do I take it that these extra representatives will be impartial? The announcement made in another place about the composition of these Committees was not very satisfying, and now extra people are to be appointed to what should be an impartial body.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on the distinction between the Commission and the Livestock Advisory Committee, which are quite separate bodies. The Livestock Advisory Committee as originally provided for by the Bill had two sub-committees, one for England and Wales and


one for Scotland. Representations were made to the effect that Wales ought to have a separate sub-committee, and, in view of the reasonableness of that request, provision has been made for a sub-committee for Wales. That, however, gave rise to a difficulty. If all these members of sub-committees were necessarily to be full members of the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee would be unduly large, and all that we are doing now is to make provision for members of a subcommittee who are not also members of the Livestock Advisory Committee, which is quite different from the Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment in page 51, line 17, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 19, after "Committee," insert "or of any of the said sub-committees."

8.34 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In doing so I should like to assure the House that all the remaining Lords Amendments are purely verbal in character, and make no change in the nature of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULA TION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 7.—(Penalties and legal proceedings.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "whether" to insert "or not."
The Amendments to this Clause fall to be considered together. When the Bill was in Committee, doubt was expressed as to the exact meaning of the provision which enabled the court to require an employer to make back payment of wages. I undertook to look further into the matter and these Amendments are now proposed with the object merely of making more specific the purpose that the Clause is designed to secure, namely, that when the court orders an employer to make back

payment of wages, either for the period of six months in Sub-section (3) or for the longer period of a further 18 months in Sub-section (4), the money shall be paid to the workman and not to the court. Owing to a mistake one drafting Amendment has been omitted and I will move it on line 16.

Mr. Johnston: We welcome the Amendments to clarify the position and to meet the objections that we raised in Committee, when we held the view that it was not clear that a victimised employé would get the allowances that had been withheld from him in cases where a farmer had been convicted and fined. We should, however, like to know precisely what the Amendment is that it is proposed to insert on line 16.

The Lord Advocate: It is to delete the words "in addition," which do not read well with the Clause as amended. I will read the opening words of the Subsection as they will read when amended as proposed:
In any proceedings against an employer under this Section the court shall, whether or not there is a conviction or a fine is imposed, order the employer to pay to the worker such sum as may be found,
and so on.

Mr. Johnston: What purpose is served by taking out the words "in addition"? They make it quite clear that the intention is that, in addition to the fine paid in certain eventualities by a defaulting employer, the employé, who has been defrauded may get such sums as are due to him. What is the purpose of taking out the emphasising words "in addition"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it will be more convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to explain that when we come to the Amendment.

Mr. Johnston: It is purely a matter of convenience. If we could be satisfied on the point, all the Amendments could be agreed to at once.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I hope we may do it. It will be a great convenience.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no objection if it is the wish of the House.

The Lord Advocate: As originally drafted the Clause read:


whether there is a conviction or not order the employer to pay in addition to the fine, if any, such sum,
In order to make it clear that the payment falls to be made to the worker, we have deleted the closing words of line 16 and refer to the fine at the end of line 15 by making it read:
whether or not there is a conviction or a fine is imposed,
So that the fine is brought in there and the payment that falls to be made to the worker, as distinguished from the payment that falls to be made to the court, will, of course, be in addition to the fine, if a fine has been imposed, but will not be in addition to the fine if a fine has not been imposed. The alteration has precisely the effect that we all intend to achieve. It is only a question of doing it one way or another.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 6, line 16, leave out "not," and insert "a fine is imposed."
In line 16, leave out "fine, if any," and insert "worker."
In line 34, after "pay," insert "to the worker."—[The Lord Advocate.]

SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and proceedings of agricultural wages committees and the agricultural wages board.)

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, in page 12, line II, to leave out, "may, if at any time they deem it expedient," and to insert "shall."
As the Schedule stands, the Department may, if at any time they deem it expedient, appoint two independent members to each committee for the fixation of wages, that is in addition to the independent chairman. We took the strongest possible objection to the nomination of these two independent members and we were fortified in our objection by the fact that the Caithness Committee, composed as it was of farmers' representatives and neutral persons, agreed unanimously that it would be undesirable that there should be any of these nominated persons. The committee said:
No members of the district wages committee should be appointed by the Minister. In making these recommendations, we have kept prominently in mind what we regard as the vital and essential principle of any system of wage regulation in Scottish Agriculture,

that the determination of minimum rates should as far as it is practicable be left in the hands of the industry itself.
We hoped to induce the Secretary of State and the Government to agree that the alleged independent members should not be appointed. We also hoped to induce the Committee to accept our point of view, but in the course of the discussion there emerged a new difficulty, that, as the Schedule now stood, the Secretary of State might appoint these independent members if at any time he deemed it expedient, and that it might be that he would deem it expedient to appoint these two independent members during the operation of a wages dispute. Many Members in all parts of the Committee felt that it would be highly undesirable that the Secretary of State for Scotland, either the present Secretary or any future Secretary, should nominate alleged independent members to give, in effect, a decision in the event of a dispute between the farmers and the farm workers. The Secretary of State undertook to consider the matter. He was obviously in some doubt himself, and he undertook to examine the whole position afresh between the Committee and the Report stages. He was not tied one way or another to the Schedule.
In order to make the position clear my hon. Friends and myself have tabled this Amendment to make it compulsory upon him to appoint his two independent members immediately the Act has passed, so that it will not be left in his hands to appoint his independent members during the currency of a wages dispute. The farm workers' representatives still hold very firmly to the view that we ought not to implicate ourselves in any way whatever in the appointment of these independent members, and it is the lesser of two evils that we have to choose between to allow the Schedule to remain. That is, that the Secretary of State may appoint them when he thinks it expedient. If the Schedule is agreed to as it stands, there is no compulsitor upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint independent members at all. There are areas where doubtless he will appoint them, but there are areas where he might find it difficult to get independent members, and indeed he might not find it desirable, for various reasons, to appoint independent members. Therefore, my hon. Friends and myself have


come to the conclusion that it is advisable in this, as in every course of life, to choose the lesser of two evils, and with the permission of the House we do not propose to press the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan: What is the Motion before the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: After a speech of that kind, I think I am bound to treat the Amendment as moved and to put the Question accordingly.

8.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), am now in some little difficulty, and I think that it would be well to face this matter in the simplest fashion. I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility myself. I do not wish in any way to tie the right hon. Gentleman or his friends to the responsibility of inserting the two independent members as a compulsitor on the Secretary of State, but I hold to the frame of mind in which I was left at the conclusion of the Debate, that either the two independent members should be in the committee or should not be in the committee, and if they are to be in the committee, it should be by the decision of the House and not by the decision of the Secretary of State. I meditated for some time on that, and the right hon. Gentleman, and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), will remember I wrote both of them on 1st July at some length indicating that that was my view and that I proposed to put down an Amendment to that effect. On finding that there was an Amendment on the Paper, I thought that it would be courteous not to put my name at the head of such an Amendment, and, therefore, I did not put my name down to this Amendment. But it does express my view, and I recommend the House to decide accordingly.
I am perfectly ready to take the responsibility myself, but I think that the arguments which went a long way to convince us all on the Committee stage, and which, I think, convinced the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, to the effect that this Amendment ought to be tabled, are valid, and consequently the committee should include two independent members. That

should be part of their constitution as enjoined upon the Secretary of State by the House and should not be left to the will of the Secretary of State or the Department. I am the more reinforced in that view since for 12 years now we have had experience of this being worked satisfactorily in England and the appointment of independent members of a committee has been a great advantage. I support the Amendment on the Paper.

8.53 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: We all seem to be in rather a difficulty at the moment. As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked leave to withdraw it. That leave will be refused and we shall then divide on it. We must decide what attitude we are to take when the Division is called. I have considered the question of the appointment of the two independent members very carefully. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State made this proposal and undertook this responsibility of appointing, in certain circumstances, these two independent members —and I stated this upstairs on the Scottish Select Committee—because of his anxiety to see, on the one hand, that this scheme was worked in the districts by the local people, and, on the other hand, that in the unhappy event of a deadlock there would be no breakdown. Personally, I should not have regarded it as a breakdown if it went to the central board, but I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view. I am not going now into that controversy.
I can only say to the House that I have not altered the view which I expressed in the Scottish Standing Committee. I said then that I thought that the appointment of these independent members was a mistake. I still think that it is a mistake. Then the right hon. Gentleman made, as he said, a suggestion to me in a letter which he wrote to me—the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has put in the form of an Amendment. Quite frankly, that did seem to be an improvement. One of the things I disliked most about the original proposal was that into discussions which had been barren and had led to a deadlock, would be interjected two new people who would come into an atmosphere which was already rendered difficult by sharp


controversy and whose opinions on the point at issue would be canvassed and who would be considered to be biased one way or the other. I thought it was a very difficult task to put upon them and that it would not improve the atmosphere of the committee.
Therefore, when the Secretary of State made the suggestion that the two members should be appointed from the beginning, I thought that that would be an improvement on the original proposal, and I still think so. If the matter goes to a Division I assume that the question involved will be whether or not independent members should be appointed, and it is upon that issue that I shall vote. I shall vote against appointing these independent members, but if they are to be appointed then I wish to make it plain that I think the Amendment now before the House is an improvement on the original proposal.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) on this point. I still hold to the view that the appointment of independent members either at the beginning or the end is a bad proposal, and I do not think that the Amendment is an improvement on the old proposal. What is it that is feared by the critics of the method in the Bill? As I heard the discussion in Committee and in the House, they fear that a dispute will arise and that the Secretary of State will then co-opt two independent persons on to the committee at that particular stage. I should prefer that method to the method now proposed. Let us assume that a dispute arises because conditions are not satisfactory, a deadlock occurs on the committee and at that stage the Secretary of State makes two appointments. The moment he does that, he has taken a Parliamentary step that can be challenged in this House at a very important moment. He throws the whole dispute into Parliamentary controversy and we can come to the House and challenge his action. Otherwise we shall have no such chance.
If these people are appointed beforehand, perhaps long before a dispute arises, there will be no chance of raising the issue on the Floor of the House. I shall divide against the Amendment

because it makes the appointment of these independent people compulsory. I am totally opposed to the so-called independent persons. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge (Mr. Barr) said that he would like to know who the independent people were. Independent people do not exist. I do not think they are necessary for the working of this legislation. Of the two methods the method in the Bill is preferable. If the right hon. Gentleman is to appoint two persons it is to be assumed that he will appoint those whom he regards as best qualified, and once they have been appointed we can challenge him here, but if they are appointed in the way now proposed those appointments will not be subject to Parliamentary criticism.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I think it would be unfortunate if the independent persons were to be added at a late stage of the proceedings when, as the hon. Member suggests, their independence could be challenged on the Floor of the House. What sort of independent members would they appear to be on the committee if their integrity and impartiality were being challenged in the House of Commons? If I had thought that hon. Members opposite were going to adopt the Gilbertian situation of bringing forward an Amendment merely because they thought they would not be associated with it, I should have put down an Amendment on these lines. Therefore, I am glad that the Secretary of State has adopted the line that he has. The experience of the English Wages Committee has been that the independent members have saved the situation. If the matter was to be left to the decision of a single independent chairman, whatever decision he made he would be a black or tan according to the way the people looked at his action. By the addition of two independent members to the tribunal we can ensure that any decision arrived at will be much more likely to be accepted than if it is the decision of a single member. For that reason I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is going to adopt the procedure which he has explained.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I want to dissociate myself and my hon. Friends on these benches


from the supposition that we have put down an Amendment in order to dissociate ourselves from it. We are under the influence of public opinion and consultation from the farmers or the farm servants, and it is only because we have fuller knowledge of opinion in those quarters that we have hesitation in proceeding with the Amendment. We appear to have fallen into eddies and crosscurrents in the House and we are faced with difficulty. Hon. Members are, however, generally agreed on one thing, and that is that if a certain crisis or deadlock arises there is danger at that point in appointing men who are not likely to receive thanks from one side or the other. That is why we thought of putting in the compulsitor. On the other hand, I must say that I do not like bringing these so-called independent members at all. I do not know where you will find them. I have not found them in politics.

Mr. Buchanan: Or in religion?

Mr. Barr: No, I do not think you will find an unbiased man in religion either. When he says he is strictly undenominational, it means that he has still a denomination on his own. When a man says that he does not belong to any party he belongs to what was once described in this House as "the party of no party men." If a man at any time comes up to me and says, "Mr. Barr, I never take any part in politics," I know at once that he does not vote Labour. There is the historic case of the great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon who was a famous preacher and a Radical. A friend wrote to him saying that he was mixing in the mire of politics, and that he should be above taking any part in politics. Mr. Spurgeon wrote back in reply: "I am very glad to know that you do not take any part in politics, for I am sure that if you did you would vote Tory." I do not know that we can find these independent men, and if we did I do not think they would be worth very much either in argument or in matters of policy. I do not know how this question will emerge, but I should be inclined to go back to the position I originally took up and leave out these two so-called independent members, or to take part in a decision which would show that we

are not in favour of bringing in these independent members.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: We are in a most extraordinary situation, and one which certainly confuses me. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has moved an Amendment which has been attacked from all sections of the Opposition and at the same time has been warmly supported by the Secretary of State, who said that he would be happy to accept it. In normal circumstances such an announcement would be cheered by hon. Members opposite. But now I do not know exactly where we are. At any rate, we are at one that the question can be decided on its merits and that it has nothing to do with party politics. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) that these committees are practically bound to develop into a dog fight between farmers and farm servants, with a sort of piebald referee to decide the issue. If that is the result of this Bill then it would be far better if the Bill had never been introduced at all. The one thing which we are all anxious to avoid is to drive a wedge, which has not existed for a century, between farmers and farm servants in Scotland. That is the one thing we want to avoid. We do not want to have the farmers on one side and the farm servants on the other engaged in a kind of dog fight, and then a so-called independent refereee called in to decide between them.
The only question we have to decide on this Amendment is whether we shall be more likely to avoid this by appointing two so-called independent members right away or whether it is wiser to give the Secretary of State discretion to appoint them ad hoe when a dispute arises. I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I am inclined to think that it would be much better to let the thing alone for the time being. The Secretary of State has not produced any convincing argument for appointing in every case these two independent members to keep the ring between farmers and farm servants. If he makes this gesture to the Opposition which they do not seem to desire it will go a little way towards indicating that in every case there will be a dispute. I still believe that a dispute will be the rare occasion, and when it occurs will, in


my opinion, be the moment for the Secretary of State to intervene on his own responsibility and take immediate cognisance of the dispute. If the Amendment is passed he will not be able to do that. I do not know whether there is time to give further consideration to this matter from that aspect but I hope that such further consideration will be given.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: May I by leave of the House make an appeal to the Secretary of State? We are in a little difficulty. We are trying to face the realities of the situation, and are anxious that the Measure should operate with the minimum of friction. For the Secretary of State's conduct of the Bill upstairs we have nothing but commendation, and it is due to that fact that there are hardly any Amendments on the Paper. Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to refrain from pushing this to a Division in the Lobby, leaving himself with the power he has in the Schedule and then if he finds it expedient he can appoint these independent members. There are areas where it will be found difficult to appoint independent members at all, and inasmuch as there is no political issue at stake and as we are all anxious for the Measure to work smoothly, is it not possible for the Secretary of State still to keep his power to appoint these independent members but not to make it compulsory?

9.13 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I agree that this is not a controversial subject. It has been my duty to learn something about the working of the wages boards in connection with England when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, and as one who has had experience of dealing with this problem and also of appointing people to these committees, I can speak with a certain knowledge of the subject. So far as I am able to gauge the matter it was one of the surest methods of avoiding what I am sure we are all anxious to avoid, a complete deadlock between the two sections of the industry. Imagine, for a moment, what will be the position of the independent chairman who is to be appointed under the Bill if, in every case where there is a dispute, he is to be put in the unenviable position of having to take sides with one section or the other. His position will be untenable. On the other hand, if the committee has

upon it from the first two individuals who, having heard the arguments on both sides and knowing all the details of the subject, can use their influence and advice, that of itself will be an ameliorative condition. If the suggestion were that when a deadlock had occurred the Minister should be called upon to bring in two independent individuals who would have no accurate knowledge of what had happened in the committee beforehand, that would not be helpful.
I look back to the times when we got along all right in Scotland without having wages boards; it is only because that system has unfortunately broken down that we are to-day faced with this Measure. With our experience of the working of such a Measure throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales, is it to be said that we are not to take advantage of the circumstances as shown to us, that these individuals who have been added to the committees have been able to prevent disputes throughout the country? In my judgment, the Minister will be well advised to accept this Amendment and to appoint the independent people from the beginning. I hope the House will agree to that.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I have listened to the Debate with great interest. There seems to be a great deal of excitement about having two individuals walking into the committee when the dispute takes place, but that is the general practice with regard to many of the industrial disputes that occur. For instance, in the London transport dispute recently, the parties met and discussed the matter, and it was only after a deadlock had been reached that other people were brought in, and ultimately it was through those people that a settlement was arrived at. Hon. Members who say that it would be a terrible thing, in the case of these wages committees, if a dispute occurred between the two sides and two people who did not know anything about the matter walked in, should ask themselves what the people who have gone into most of the disputes in the industrial world during the last few years have known about them. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) was a member of the Government, that was the ordinary procedure that was followed.


So much nonsense has been talked about this matter that I felt I ought to intervene in order to say how disgusted I was to hear all the talk about what a terrible thing it would be if two men were brought into a wages committee in Perthshire after a dispute had taken place. Many hon. Members are not assured about the impartiality of the people who would be brought in to deal with the disputes. I do not believe it is possible to get impartial people. I think that everyone has a tendency to judge from the standpoint of his own training and temperament. I believe that all this talk about impartiality is so much twaddle. It is the general practice of all Governments to appoint such individuals, and when they do so they do it on the basis that the particular people they are appointing are impartial. There is one other point that worries me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok has referred to the experience in England, where there are independent members of the committees. The right hon. Gentleman said that the poor chairman, if he had not those two individuals on the committee, would always be worried about the balance between the employers and the workers. What would happen if the two individuals in the committee took opposite sides? Generally one of them takes the workers' point of view and the other the employers' point of view, and then again the poor chairman is right in the middle of the two sides. I fancy that that would be a common experience if the two independent members were appointed.
A great deal of humbug has been talked about this matter. I do not think these two members should be appointed at all. If a deadlock occurs, it is the business of the Minister to get into touch with the parties, as happens in the case of any industrial dispute. As things stand, I think the Minister would be well advised in the meantime to take the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), and then to reconsider the matter. If he alters his opinion, and thinks that a change in the Bill is necessary, possibly he could make the change in another place. I think the view that

has been expressed from the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House, as well as from this side, is that the expectation should be that the wages committees will work in general, and that in practice no such appointments will be necessary.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: One would imagine from the Debate that we were discussing whether or not there should be independent members on the committees. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that we were discussing whether or not there should be independent members, but no Amendment in his name or that of anybody else has suggested that there should not be.

Mr. Buchanan: That is the Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. Elliot: The Amendment on the Paper deals with the circumstances in which independent members should be appointed, and whether discretion should or should not be given to the Minister.

Mr. Buchanan: Under the Bill as it is, the Secretary of State may, if at any time he deems it expedient, appoint the two independent members, but the Amendment would make it compulsory by law that they should be appointed.

Mr. Elliot: The arguments have proceeded to some extent on the basis that there should not be any independent members. It would have been easy to put down an Amendment to that effect. But I only say that in no part of the House has any such Amendment been put down. The last thing I wish to do is to bring up against any hon. Members the Amendments which they have tabled, but the fact remains that we are discussing this on an Amendment which suggests that this should be enjoined on the Secretary of State. If such an Amendment had not been put down I should have put down such an Amendment, and there can be no suggestion of any lack of information about that, because I did intimate that as long ago as 1st July, both to the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). Therefore I do not think that the Committee are in any difficulty. The Committee are merely faced with the question whether the appointment should be


made in circumstances dictated by the House or by the Secretary of State.
It has been borne in on me what dangers of ambiguity there might be if the words stood as they are. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has quite a different conception of it from me. My conception is certainly not that a dispute should go on and reach an acute point and then the appointment should be made by the Secretary of State, which appointment would be, as he said, challengeable on the Floor of the House. If I made the appointment according to my conception I should be challenged for bad faith by the hon. Member for Gorbals and others who would say "You are depriving us of the Parliamentary opportunity of challenging these appointments." The last thing I would want is to be challenged for bad faith. The circumstances under which these Members

ought to be appointed will have to go out from the House to-night. There is much more likelihood of trouble if the people working on this committee are working under circumstances of ambiguity, and I feel still more apprehensive about the dangers of ambiguity after to-night's Debate. If the circumstances in which the Members were appointed were left ambiguous it would lead to disputes in the Committee and in the House.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Elliot: No.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 184.

Division No. 283.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bromfield, W.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton. T. M.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Leash, W.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.



Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brass, Sir W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beechman, N. A.
Bull, B. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bernays, R. H.
Butcher, H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Bird, Sir R. B.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bossom, A. C.
Cary, R. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Boulton, W. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Balniel, Lord
Bower, Comdr. R. r.
Christie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)




Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsbotham, H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsden, Sir E.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepworth, J.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Higgs, W. F.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cox, H. B. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W


Cross, R. H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dodd, J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Donner, P. W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Spens, W. P.


Duggan, H. J.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, K. M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Storey, S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emery, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Magnay, T.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Errington, E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Erskine-Hill, A. C.
Markham, S. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Furness, S. N.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Watt, G. S. H.


Goldie, N. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morgan, R. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Granville, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Munro, P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wise, A. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wragg, H.


Gritten, W. C. Howard
Peake, O.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.



Guy, J. C. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Mr. James Stuart and Major Sir


Hannah, I. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
George Davies.


Harbord, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M

Question put, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes; 185; Noes, 99.

Division No. 284.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dodd, J. S.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Donner, P. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duggan, H. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, J. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Apsley, Lord
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Dunglass, Lord


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Eastwood, J. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Colman, N. C. D.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Balniel, Lord
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Elliot, Rt Hon. W. E.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Emery, J. F.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Cox, H. B. T.
Errington, E.


Bernays, R. H.
Cranborne, Viscount
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fildes, Sir H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fleming, E. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Crooke, J. S.
Furness, S. N.


Boulton, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cross, R. H.
Goldie, N. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crowder, J. F. E.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Brass, Sir W.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Granville, E. L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
De Chair, S. S.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Bull, B B.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Butcher, H. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.




Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Magnay, T.
Selley, H. R.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Guy, J. C. M.
Markham, S. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Spens, W. P.


Harbord, A.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stewart, William J.(Belfast, S.)


Hepworth, J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, S.


Higgs, W. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morgan, R. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hopkinson, A.
Nall, Sir J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peake, O.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hunter, T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Procter, Major H. A.
Watt, G. S. H.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Kimball, L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsbotham, H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wise, A. R.


Lewis, O.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wragg, H.


Liddall, W. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Lindsay, K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)



Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rowlands, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loftus, P. C.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Munro.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salt, E. W.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Holdsworth, H.
Rowson, G.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton. T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Windser, W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.



Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER ANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to call either of the Amendments on the Paper. Third Reading?

Mr. Elliot: Now, Sir.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: On a point of Order. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I desire to ask your guidance, Sir, with regard to this question. On this Bill I have received a communication from the town clerk depute of Glasgow on behalf of a Councillor Alexander Ritchie, who is the chairman of the corporation's Committee on Parliamentary Bills—

Mr. Elliot: Would it not be more convenient if the remarks which the hon. Member has to make were made on the Third Reading of the Bill?

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: Further to the point of Order. When we arrive at the Third Reading stage, any action that might be taken on the Report stage would fall to the ground, and it is just as well that the statement of my hon. Friend should be received by the House before we take the Third Reading, in order that we might come to a proper understanding.

Mr. Speaker: We have passed the Report stage of the Bill; and I was proceeding to put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Maclean: If we are to have the Third Reading to-night, it will mean that we shall not know what attitude to adopt, because of something that has arisen since the Committee stage took place. It is all contained in the statement which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) is putting. Therefore, if this statement is only to be made on the Third Reading, it will mean that we must ask for the Third Reading to be deferred until some action is taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I, therefore, think that you should hear the statement read before you ask for the Third Reading.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: May I finish my statement, Mr. Speaker, and leave it to your decision whether this is a definite point of Order or a point of privilege? I received this document from the Town Clerk Depute of Glasgow, and it refers to a very definite pledge by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Committee stage of the Bill. I trust that the House will forgive me for reading that pledge. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I should like to make it clear that the assurance was a general assurance. I certainly will consult the local authorities and their responsible committees on the Bill as amended.
Then he goes on to say:
In all these matters we shall not merely consult them, but shall draw their specific attention to any Amendments that have been made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 1st July, 1937; col. 53.]
I have received from the Glasgow Corporation a statement which shows clearly, as well as letters from the Secretary of State's own Department, that the Glasgow Corporation's representative did not receive the Bill as amended in Committee until 9th July, which was a Friday, and on that day there was also an indication in the "Glasgow Herald" and the local Press that the Report stage of the Bill would be taken on 12th July, which was, I understand, the original intention of the Government. That means that only Saturday and Sunday were left for this local authority, the biggest in Scotland, to consider the Bill as amended, and I want to know what action we can take on this side of the House in order to get some assurance that local authorities which received this pledge will be able to do something in the matter of the consideration of this Bill. May I be permitted, for the right hon. Gentleman's own benefit, to read a copy of a letter received from the Clerk to the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities, dated 6th July, which states that he has not received the copy of the Bill as amended? A letter from his own particular Department, dated 3rd July and signed by David Milne, to Mr. Robertson, who is the hon. Clerk of the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities, states:
I accordingly enclose for the information of the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities in Scotland copies of the Committee proceedings. Copies of the Bill as amended in Committee are not yet available, but it is hoped that it will be possible to furnish


copies of these by hand by Tuesday morning, 6th July.
Now the Town Clerk of Glasgow receives a letter with regard to this Bill from Mr. Robertson, dated 8th July, in which he states that he encloses copy of the Bill. This Bill, in violation of the pledge of the Secretary of State for Scotland, only reached this authority on the 9th, which was a Friday, and only gave them Saturday and Sunday, and I am asking you, Sir, what steps can be taken, or whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any definite undertaking that he will see to it that any pledges given to local authorities in the future shall be kept.

Mr. Speaker: It is rather a difficult point of Order for me to decide, but the Bill, as I understand, was reported on 1st July, and in that case it would be printed the next day. I should have to verify that statement as to when it was printed, but it was certainly printed a day or two after it was reported, and in that case, of course, it would be available to the Glasgow Corporation, the hon. Member can take it, as long ago as 2nd or 3rd July.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: The definite point that arises here is that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a definite pledge that he himself will call the attention of the local authorities which are concerned in this particular Bill to the amended Bill, but that has not been done. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows very well, as a Member representing a Glasgow constituency, that the Glasgow Town Council is closed down for this period, and consequently the Parliamentary Bills Committee could not be got together to consider it, even on the Saturday, when the Bill was received. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to make a statement to the House—

Mr. Elliot: I am quite ready to do so.

Mr. Maclean: —in view of the definite statement and pledge that he made to the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Davidson: I would like to move "That this House do now adjourn," in order to give the Secretary of State an opportunity of replying to us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move "That this House do now adjourn." He can only move that the Debate be adjourned on the Motion for the

Third Reading. That would give the opportunity for the Secretary of State to reply.

Mr. Davidson: I accept your guidance and I am prepared to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. Speaker: There is no Debate to be adjourned until the Motion for the Third Reading is proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Davidson: I beg to move, "That the Debate be adjourned."
I do that in order that the Secretary of State can give me a reply to the statement I have made.

Mr. Speaker: I am ready to put that Motion in order to allow the Secretary of State to make a statement, but it must not proceed beyond that.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I gladly take the opportunity of making a statement on this matter—a statement which, of course, I was ready to make on Third Reading or at any time which was convenient to the House. I do not think that the pledge I gave to the Committee on this Bill has not been fully implemented. Scottish Members who were present will remember that there were numerous drafting Amendments, and I gave the assurance that they did not raise points of substance. Hon. Members opposite said that they wished to be sure that the local authorities had their attention called to these Amendments and that they would agree if they did
not raise points of substance. I still maintain, and it has not been challenged, that the Amendments do not raise points of substance. The question is, did the local authorities have a reasonable time to assure themselves of that? It would, of course, be a very different matter if the Amendments raised great points of principle which the local authorities ought to consider. All we were discussing in Committee, and all we are discussing now, is the very narrow point whether the local authorities had adequate time to assure themselves that no sweeping changes were being made in the Bill by the large number of Amendments in Committee.
Let us see whether the local authorities did have an opportunity to reassure themselves on that point. The Committee proceedings were received by the


Department on Saturday, 3rd July. Those proceedings, of course, gave not merely the changes made in the Bill, but the discussions upon those changes. They were issued to the clerks of the three associations on the same day. That is 10 days ago. Furthermore, the Bill as amended in Committee was received by the Department on Thursday, 8th July, and was issued to the clerks of the associations the same morning. Therefore, the representative associations of the local authorities have been in possession of the Committee proceedings of the Bill since 3rd July, and of the amended Bill since 8th July.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the amended Bill was sent to various corporations or to the clerks of the three associations:

Mr. Elliot: It was sent to the clerks of the three associations. It is the whole essence of the discussion that the Amendments are admittedly not Amendments of substance, and the point that had to be considered by the local authorities was whether by inadvertence any important change had been made in the Bill. On that point I submit that the respective organisations are fully competent to examine and decide. Nobody has suggested that any point of substance is concerned. No local authority has suggested that there has been any Amendment made contrary to the Bill as originally introduced and discussed in this House, and I suggest that the local authorities have had ample time to discover any change of substance if any had been made.
I come to the pledge that I gave. I said that I certainly would consult the local authorities and their responsible committees on the Bill as amended, and that we should draw their specific attention to any Amendments which had been made. The specific attention of the responsible people involved, that is to say, the clerks of the associations, was drawn to the changes which had been made. What was the proper course if, in fact, any of the local authorities felt that any change had been made upon which they wished further delay? The answer is simple—to inform me, the Secretary of State. Had any suggestion come from any authority on any point suggesting

that a further delay should be made, I should have had no hesitation in delaying the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member will grant that as a complete answer to the point he has raised. If anybody had any point to raise, the proper person with whom to raise it was myself.

Mr. Davidson: May I suggest, then, to the right hon. Gentleman that, as I have received this information and have been asked by an important corporation to put forward this point, I will accept his assurance that the question will be delayed until the local authorities have had an opportunity of considering the change? May I point out that in one letter the clerk of the association of counties and cities definitely states that there is an important change. May I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will delay the Bill?

Mr. Elliot: If there was any dispute about what the pledge was, the proper person with whom to raise it is the person who gave the pledge. I dispute that the proper course was to communicate with somebody else and not with me. I say that without hesitation, and I am sure that I shall be backed up by the House all the more because the local authority officers are anxious that this Bill should reach the Statute Book. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said that it was difficult to get together the Glasgow Corporation. That may well be, but the people who are concerned in this matter are anxious drat the Bill should receive consideration by this House at the earliest moment, and they are entitled to have the Bill proceeded with. I do suggest that time has been given for the examination of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am putting the point to the House that time has been given for the examination of this Bill and that no local authority in Scotland has made a single representation to me or to the Scottish Office on this point. In view of that, I suggest that we are entitled to proceed with the Bill.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I raised in Committee a protest against the multiplicity of new Amendments which were being imported into the Bill, Amendments of considerable complexity, which I found great difficulty in understanding. I received from


the Solicitor-General for Scotland a definite assurance that there would be consultations and an admission that he was afraid that in their anxiety to have the two Bills—the English and the Scottish Bills—before the Committee and the House at substantially the same time, the Government did not have full opportunity of considering small points of drafting which they wished to have. That was the admission of the Solicitor-General. He went on to say that they themselves had some difficulties in the matter and they undertook, in order to satisfy all the interested parties, to consult with the local authorities and supply them with the Amendments which had been imported into the Bill in Committee. I am sure that on a Measure of this kind, on which there is really no divergence of political opinion between the Government and the Opposition, no one would accuse the Secretary of State or his office of trying by sharp practice to get a Bill amended in Committee hurriedly and behind the backs of the officials engaged in local government in Scotland. Nobody does suggest that.
As the Glasgow Corporation, the largest corporation in that country, has, for one, evidently some apprehensions on the matter, and complains that it got intimation of these Amendments only on the Friday, with a Press statement that the Bill would be taken on the Monday, and as it was impossible for it to consider the Amendments on the Saturday and Sunday, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might well agree to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill for another two days. There will be no trouble and no delay, and it would remove any apprehensions which do exist, or which may exist, among certain local authorities, because they do the Government no good and are likely to raise the maximum amount of irritation where none need exist. In view of the Solicitor-General's own admission in Committee, in view of the specific pledges, and in view of the assertions made on behalf of the corporation of Glasgow, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept the suggestion to adjourn the further consideration of the Third Reading to-night, because we could easily take the Bill some other night.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I can speak again only by leave of the House. Let me put this

point to the right hon. Gentleman. We are now on the Third Reading and no amendment can be made in the Bill. I am perfectly willing to give the most complete assurance that in another place ample time will be given for the consideration of this point, or any other point, which any of the local authorities may wish. I can do that with the more certainty since I was about to offer to the House a concession which, of course, could be made only in another place. I was going to recommend a concession upon a point to which the right hon. Gentleman himself and his friends attach considerable importance, and that is as to the qualifying date in the case of service with the Forces. That Amendment can be made only in another place. I suggest, since we are all agreed that it was certainly not my will to import anything into the Bill behind the backs of the local authorities, and since I had in good faith put the Bill down for to-night on the full understanding that it had been before the respective associations and no exception had been taken to it, that we should proceed with the Bill. As soon as I learned that the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) was raising his particular point I myself got into direct communication with Glasgow. I have been speaking on the telephone with them, and as far as I understand, from the conversations I have had with them, they do not have any objection to the Amendments.
I give the hon. Member the fullest assurance that I will, if he desires it, consult him and his hon. Friends as to a suitable date for the Bill to be taken in another place. I do, however, beg that we should get the Third Reading to-night, and send the Bill to another place, because it is most desirable that adequate time should be given there for its consideration. The Bill has to be printed and circulated there, and I suggest that its ample and full consideration will be better secured by passing it now and sending it to another place and having it examined there. As I say, I will consult with any hon. or right hon. Gentleman as to the time which he desires should elapse before the Bill is put down for its appropriate stages in another place.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I understand from my hon. Friend that he will not oppose


the proposal of the Secretary of State, having regard to the further pledges which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but I think it is pertinent to draw the attention of the House to the growing prevalence of the practice of promising to make Amendments to Bills in another place contrary to the privilege of this House. Many Amendments which it might be sought to make in another place might touch upon the question of finance, and we should then find Mr. Speaker drawing our attention again to the fact that he is waiving the privilege of this House. Surely that point ought to be borne in mind by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member is not accusing me of waiving the privileges of the House.

Mr. Garro Jones: I well recognise, Sir, that you are the champion of the rights and privileges of this House, and I should never dream of suggesting otherwise, but before we allow this Bill to proceed to a Third Reading it is necessary to rebut most emphatically some of the suggestions made by the Secretary of State. He said that it was not appropriate if a local authority had a grievance to approach the Member for the division, but that he himself was the proper person to be approached. That is certainly not the case. It is as much the proper procedure for a local authority to approach the Member as it is for them to approach the Secretary of State.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member should not forget that I also am a Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he was not claiming priority of approach in his capacity as Member for one of the Glasgow Divisions, but in his capacity as Minister in charge of this Bill, and that is a false claim which must be rebutted. Moreover, the propriety of approaching the Member was strengthened by the very fact that the Minister had presented the local authorities with a fait accompli, contrary to the pledge which was given in the Committee. He pledged not only consultation with the bodies representing the local authorities but with the local authorities themselves. It was on the 9th of this month that they received a

copy of the Bill embodying Amendments which he sought to make. Saturday and Sunday followed. How could they approach him in time to prevent this matter coming on on Monday? Therefore they took the proper course in writing to their Member and he has, with great propriety, sought to impede the progress of the Bill this evening.
I find that there were several important Amendments to the Bill, not trivial matters as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope that the events of this evening will be, if I may say so without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, a lesson to him and other Ministers to treat with the strictest punctilio the promises they make in Committee to get these matters attended to.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: May I ask whether the Minister will carry out his pledge to the local authorities in the manner in which he gave it in column 50 of the Standing Committee Proceedings? He will find that he gave a pledge in the most definite manner. He said, referring to the Amendments:
I think that most of them are drafting, but it is right that the local authorities' attention should be drawn to the matter, and it seems to me, speaking offhand, that the most convenient way would be to give them, not merely copies of the Bill as amended, but copies of the Amendments on the Paper, so that they could follow them one by one. I see no reason at all why that should not be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 1st July, 1937; col. 50.]
From his statement to the House this evening, it is evident that that pledge has not been carried out with the definiteness with which he made it to the Committee. We are about to agree to the course which he has suggested, and I am asking him to carry out the pledge, in the interval between now and the Bill being considered in another place, by supplying to the local authorities copies of the Amendments so that they can follow them one by one, as he himself suggested in his speech. I wonder whether that is going to be done.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. I would remind the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that I carried out my pledge to supply


local authorities with copies of the Committee proceedings before I carried out my pledge to supply them with the copy of the amended Bill, because the Amendments were available on 3rd July. I will certainly see that local authorities get copies of the Amendments and of the discussion which took place upon those Amendments, that is to say, of the Proceedings of the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope, with that assurance that the pledge which I gave on the Committee stage, will be fulfilled in full measure, the hon. Member for Govan will be satisfied.

Mr. Davidson: Having raised this question, I do not wish to impede the business of the House. I fully accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and I can add only that more consideration should be given to local authorities in regard to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.18 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I wish to draw attention to the second paragraph of Subsection (3) of Clause 12, which provides discrimination against voluntary service counting for service with a local authority. I realise that there were reasons for avoiding the creation of a precedent or the raising of claims on border-line cases, and also avoiding any addition, temporary or otherwise, to the burden of rates or taxes, but my object is to get from the Secretary of State for Scotland a definite statement as to why there was a deliberate exclusion of voluntary service. I realise that this Bill is a Scottish Bill, and that there is a provision of the same sort in the English Bill, but I want to make it as clear as I can that a very great and vital principle is involved in this discrimination, and that some day Parliament will have to face the question of allowing service under the Crown, no matter in what form, to count towards pension and superannuation. At present we all deplore the difficulty of recruiting for the armed forces of the Crown, in particular for the Army, and no one can say that this provision is an encouragement to recruiting.
Personally, I feel rather strongly that there are impulses or influences behind such a wrong and deplorable decision as

the incorporation in the Bill of a discrimination against voluntary service. There may, of course, have been some pressure from local government employés to preserve their jobs against ex-service people, and one has to remember that during the period of the War we had conscription, that is to say, compulsory military service; but I never forget the large numbers of people who voluntarily served in the forces of the Crown and who, again voluntarily, extended their service after the Armistice. Those people, according to the Bill as it stands at present, are excluded from counting for pension their period of military service.
Of course, the question of cost may be a serious one, but I maintain that it is not one which should stand in our way. We are, if I may say so, incorporating the principle of voluntary service as a stigma and a handicap, and, that being so, I say that in some way or other the Secretary of State should use all his influence to have that removed. I noticed that in the Debate on the English Bill one of the reasons for allowing this provision to remain in that-Bill was the allegation that ex-service societies had, so to speak, accepted it, and had not brought any pressure or influence to bear to have any alteration made. But I feel that the matter goes deeper than that, and that no outside influences or outside associations should be the guardians of the conscience of this House. Certainly they are not the guardians of mine. I feel that we ought not to embody in a Bill a principle which discriminates against voluntary service—that we ought not to perpetuate, or even perpetrate, such an injustice.
I suggest that in some way or other the Secretary of State should try, either by extending the date or in some other way, to remove this difficulty. If that can be done, it will save from an injustice men who voluntarily extended their service at the end of the Great War—and one remembers how many fine officers and men had made themselves indispensable to their commanding officers in ships and so on, and who, therefore, could not be parted with. If the word "voluntary" is allowed to remain, it will incorporate in the Bill something which is bound to be a stigma on voluntary service, and to have the effect in the future of creating the precedent whereby military ser-


vice in the Forces of the Crown cannot be added to a man's service in other directions in other Government Departments and count for superannuation. I beg the Secretary of State to do all that he possibly can to make the alteration which I suggest.

10.25 p.m.

Captain Ramsay: I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised this point on the Scottish Bill as I raised the same point on the English Bill, and have put down a similar Amendment to this Bill. It was raised in Committee upstairs by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) and supported by all sides alike. The point is this: At the time of the Armistice, when a smaller Army was required to. finish the job, it was not the better men who were sent home, often the reverse. Officers commanding ships and battalions used their influence to persuade the best men to stay on, and the fact that their consent can be called voluntary is beside the point. This ruling amounts to not only discrimination against the man who serves his country with the Forces as against the man serving his country and in favour of the man who went back to the local authority, but in many cases against the better man and in favour of the man who was less urgently needed. The Secretary of State made a remark just now as to a concession that he was about to make in extending the date. I hope it is this particular date. It will be welcomed, I am sure, by hon. Members on all sides of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to extend the date, he will have done something but, if he still leaves in a date at which such discrimination shall take place, he will not have done enough or as much as we had hoped to see done. I, too, hope the day is not far distant when service in His Majesty's Forces, for however long it may happen to run, should not be counted as inferior for pension purposes to the service of a man who returns to the local authority.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I think it is the opinion of the House as a whole that the purposes of the Bill are desirable. At a later date, when we have had an opportunity of examining the matter at length in another place, I am confident that it will appear

that the terms of the pledge that I gave to the Committee were kept. It is, perhaps, necessary to say a word on the particular point raised by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and 'Peebles (Captain Ramsay). It is all the more necessary since to meet the point which they have raised may call down upon my head the condemnation of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), who gave the House the benefit of the very intense consideration which he had given to some of the constitutional problems affecting Scottish Members. It may be necessary to warn him that, if the concession to ex-service men which I hope to make in another place is made, it will be necessary for this House to waive Privilege when the Amendment comes down. I hope very much that we shall not be subject to being rated by the hon. Member for having made this concession, but I warn him now. It is my desire that this concession should be made and I believe that the point raised by Members from all sides of the House will have the effect of bringing about an Amendment in the English Bill also, so that in this as in some other cases we shall have given a lead to the great nation south of the Tweed.
I hope that we shall be able to extend the date to 31st December, 1920, and that covers to the full the emergency period which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peebles had in mind. They raised larger questions into which it would not be proper for me to enter and into which I am sure they would not expect me to enter, but I am glad to be able to announce to the House that it is the intention of the Government to recommend in another place the insertion of an Amendment to extend the period during which service with the Forces should count from 11th November, 1918, as now in the Bill, to 31st December, 1920. I hope that we have done cur utmost to meet the Committee not merely in the pledges which we gave, but in the assurances and examination which we gave, and I hope it will prove a testimony of good faith for the other issues which were raised, which, I am sure, in another place, will prove the vindication and not the condemnation of the Government.


Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

10.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A Bill of this kind is passed annually, as the House knows, to confirm the Customs regulations of the Manx Legislature. The Isle of Man has a separate financial existence, and in particular it has customs and excise duties which it levies, subject to confirmation of customs, but not of excise duty, by the Imperial Parliament. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to alter the customs duty imposed by the Manx Legislature. The Bill this year has five Clauses and it covers resolutions of the Manx Legislature passed in order to bring the Customs duty in the island into line with the United Kingdom duties. Clause 1 of the Bill confirms the Resolution relating to certain duties which in the Isle of Man are imposed year by year while the corresponding United Kingdom duties are permanent. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill apply to the island the alteration of duty on Empire reed-organs and Empire silk embodied in the recent United Kingdom-Canada Trade Agreement. I hope the provision will be of value to the Isle of Man, although I see that the total number of reed-organs of Empire origin which were imported in the United Kingdom last year was only two, but perhaps from the freedom from duty which our agreement now provides, the Isle of Man, together with the United Kingdom, will benefit by a larger use of these instruments.
Clause 4 confirms resolutions of Tynwald, the Manx Legislature, by which certain duties imposed in the United Kingdom by orders made under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, are applied to imports from the Irish Free State into the Isle of Man. The House will note that a modification on this occasion is the aboli-

tion of the duty on Irish horses in conformity with the action taken in this country also. Clause 5 is merely the Short Title. The Bill contains nothing unusual and conforms with the practice which falls due each year of confirming the Resolutions of the Manx Legislature.
Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Davies.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Davies.]

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I want to raise one of the most important questions that this House could consider. In 1925 the House of Commons passed the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. At that time the House believed that it had made provision for widows where the husband had been engaged in industry. The House believed that it had made provision for the widow to have a pension. Since 1925, however, we have found serious defects in that Act. One of the most serious defects is that 104 payments have to be made by the husband during his lifetime before his widow can claim a pension. I brought this matter before the House about a fortnight ago in regard to a case in my division. A certain man joined the National Health Insurance scheme in July, 1912, when the National Health Insurance Fund started. Before he had completed his two years payments, making a total of 104 stamps, he was injured in the pit. There was a fall of stone and he was so injured in the spine that he was incapacitated from work until January of this year, when he died. The man thought that in the event of his death his widow would be entitled to a widow's pension, and the widow thought so, too. On his death it was found that 104 payments had not been made because of the injury to the man, and the widow was not entitled to a pension.


We believe that that is a defect in the Act that ought to be remedied as quickly as possible. This is not an isolated case. Case after case occurs where 104 payments have not been made for some reason or another, and that prevents the widow from drawing a widow's pension. When the House passed the Act in 1925 it was not its intention to insert provisions to prevent a widow from getting a pension. The intention was that if a man in industry died his widow should be entitled to a pension. I have here the Act of 1925, but I do not propose to read the parts of the Act that have impressed me, because the hour is late and I had expected that we should have reached the Motion for the Adjournment earlier. It will suffice if I say that in the Act of 1925 a difference was made between a claimant for a Widow's and Orphan's pension and a claimant for the old age pension at 65 years of age. The widows and orphans have a different claim from those who claim a pension under the 65 years rule. In reading the 1929 Act it seems clear that if an insured man is receiving medical benefit the fact that he is receiving medical benefit entitles him to remain as an insured member and, therefore, in spite of the 104 stamp qualification this particular widow is entitled to claim widow's pension.
Another important section in the 1929 Act, provides that where a case has gone to arbitration, and most cases go to arbitration, the Minister has power to deal with the case and grant a pension. In the case I have quoted, and in all similar cases, the Minister in my opinion should use this power and see that widows get the pension. There are hundreds of cases in which the 104 stamps have not been obtained, and the widows are not receiving pensions. We are therefore quite justified in saying that the time has come when this qualification ought to be removed. It must also be remember that under the 1925 Act if a widow's husband died prior to the passing of the Act, although he may never have made one payment to the insurance fund, his widow is entitled to draw a pension simply because he belonged to an insurable trade. We have hundreds of widows drawing the widow's pension whose husbands never made one payment to the insurance fund. They draw their pensions because their husbands belonged to an insurable trade.

I know that if we reduced the number of stamps to 100 or to 90 or to 70, there would still be hard cases. Therefore it seems to us that the Minister should remove this 104 stamps qualification completely and allow it to remain that so long as the man was in an insurable trade his widow shall be entitled to a pension.
This may mean legislation, but I think there is something needed even before legislation. There should be an inquiry into all these matters. I cannot imagine the Minister agreeing to remove the qualification of 104 stamps until an inquiry has taken place. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day to have such an inquiry. This defect, and also the very serious defect that a woman whose husband has reached 65 years but who is not 65 years of age herself cannot get the 10s. pension, justify us in utilising the time of the House to bring these matters before the Government and in this way to bring pressure on the Minister and the Treasury to institute an inquiry as quickly as they can, so that steps can be taken to remove these two injustices.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: The feeling in the country on this important matter is so strong that we felt that there was need to put down a vote of censure on the Government with regard to it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has raised the subject to-night. We are very anxious that the Minister of Health should take into consideration the very important points raised by my hon. Friend, who has referred particularly to two real anomalies under the Act which have caused very great hardships to our people. If a man dies before 104 payments have been made, his widow is disqualified from receiving a pension. That is a real anomaly when one takes into account the fact that the 1925 Act laid down definitely that a widow would be entitled to a pension if she could prove that her husband, although never having made a payment, had been connected with or would have been connected with an insurable employment. I think this is something into which the Minister could very well make a full inquiry in order to relieve a difficult situation which is created among our people at the present time.


Another case that we wish to emphasise is that of a man who receives his pension at 65, but whose wife is younger and consequently is not entitled to a pension. All of us know the difficulties which such a couple have with only 10s. a week going into the home. We feel that when a man who is an insured person becomes entitled to a pension, that should also apply to his wife. The feeling in the country on these two matters is exceedingly strong. Hon. Members will perhaps remember that I raised this question in a recent Debate, and showed how the public assistance committees are being burdened with a very unfair charge because of these anomalies, and also because of the fact that the pensions are too low. That burden on the public assistance committees is very much heavier in the distressed areas and the Special Areas owing to the large number of cases of this sort with which they have to deal. We on this side are very anxious that the Minister of Health should not put this aside as a mere complaint raised on the Adjournment, but that he should make very full inquiries and see that at least these two anomalies are removed at the earliest possible moment and that the pensions are increased as soon as possible.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) for raising this matter. It so happens that I have knowledge of an even harder case than the one he mentioned, a case which was, indeed, described as a particularly hard one by the Minister of Health in answer to a question which I put to him on 1st July. In that case the husband of one of my constituents, a widow, had entered into insurance on 15th October, 1934, and unfortunately died on 9th October, 1936. That lady was disallowed the pension not on the ground that the necessary 104 contributions had not been paid, but because the full period of 104 weeks had not elapsed. This seems to me to be an almost fantastic case. If only 103 weeks' contributions had been paid the case of the Ministry might have been stronger than it is, but every necessary contribution, amounting to the minimum total of 104, was paid on the due and proper dates by the deceased man, and it is not suggested by anybody that there was any attempt dishonestly to pay the last few contributions in a lump sum.
The widow is most unfortunately deprived of a pension merely because the Ministry say that the full 104 weeks did not elapse. I suggest that this technicality is making an absurdity of the law. This is a supremely hard case and if technicalities obstruct the humane operation of our laws, where they are intended to be humane, surely these technicalities should be swept away. I support the hon. Member for Spennymoor in his suggestion that the Ministry ought to make proper inquiries and so be seized fully of the hardships which prevail.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I apologise for coming in so late from another function downstairs, but I know something of the facts which the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has put before the notice of the House. I too had one or two very hard cases in my constituency, friends of mine who have died and their widows are left without any pension. One man paid 104 contributions. If he had lived to the 31st December he would have fulfilled the other requisite of paying 104 weeks alive, but he died on 28th December, three days short, and his widow could not get a penny. I did my utmost—it must be 104 contributions and 104 full weeks—to get the pension. I saw the polite and kindly disposed officials not only in Newcastle but in Sunderland, to do what I could to get this pension for this friend of mine, but I was unable to because of that technicality, which ought to be swept away.
The other was a more curious case, that of a man, again a great friend of mine, whose salary was over the limit. He was in a big store at Newcastle, and had been for many years receiving a salary which, with his commission on sales, kept him outside the scope of the Act. They had a bad time, as most businesses did in the distressed areas, and his commission two years before his death was such that he came within the scope of the Act. But he had not been insured because he had for years had more than £250 a year. When he found that he came within the scope of the Act on 1st January he took out his insurance stamps. He died 15 months afterwards. I tried to get the officials to consider this in an ex gratia way if possible, as this had been no fault of the man himself. Two days ago I got a letter from the widow—it is a


very pathetic letter—saying that I tried two years ago to get this pension for her but found it impossible, but that she understood that there was more money about and that the Government were inclined to be more gracious and would I try again? What can I do?
I know the obvious answer. My hon. Friend will say that hard cases make bad law. But I am sure it was never the intention of Parliament in 1925 that these technicalities should operate against widows and their dependants. Why should these decent folk suffer the humiliation of being on public assistance when they should be able to retain their self-respect by receiving this pension on an insurance basis. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley). I do not see how the House could support the proposition that a young widow who may be 20 years younger than the deceased spouse should get a pension. There ought to be some limit in such cases. But I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his most kindly and favourable consideration and to see that these technicalities, which were never contemplated when this legislation was passed, are swept away to the benefit of some of the most deserving of our people.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I have drawn the attention of the Government previously to the impossibility of working either the Unemployment Insurance system or the Contributory Pensions system as they stand now, justly and fairly. In the Western Isles and in many parts of the Highlands of the conditions in which the Western Isles are typical, it is almost impossible for people to secure regular work and to make the regular payment of contributions which is necessary to qualify for these pensions. It is almost impossible to do so within the period laid down in the Act. That applies equally to unemployment insurance. At the very best the people in those areas can only get seasonal employment and the demand for it is generally greater than the supply. It varies from season to season and is a very uncertain quantity. In those conditions the regulations which are applied under the Contributory Pensions Act work un-

fairly and unjustly against people who seek to qualify.
In numerous cases testimonials are sent to me to the effect that such-and-such a person has died and that his widow has failed to qualify for pension although the man during his lifetime did his best to secure insurable employment but was prevented from doing so by local conditions. Clearly where conditions such as are contemplated under these Acts do not exist these regulations should not apply. As I say, I have already drawn attention to this matter on more than one occasion. I have drawn the attention of the Minister of Labour to those cases which come under his jurisdiction and I have drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the conditions relating to contributory pensions in the Highlands, and the impossibility of satisfying the conditions. Surely it is time that some sort of investigation was made into these conditions, and although I cannot propose legislation or even a modification—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Davies.]

11.0 p.m.

Mr. MacMillan: I have given examples to the Minister which in themselves are proof that injustice is rampant in these parts of the Western Isles of Scotland, and surely it is time that some action was taken by the Ministers responsible to end that injustice. At least we should expect some sort of inquiry into the working of the regulations and of the Act in these parts, where the conditions laid down in the Act do not apply and, therefore, the Act cannot possibly be operated.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that the Government will recognise that the time has arrived when an investigation should be made into these anomalies. In 1929 an amending Act was passed which dealt with certain anomalies and sought to improve the position of pensioners. Since then this country, particularly in the industrial parts of it, has passed through an experience that was never known before. Up to then thousands of men had been in regular employment and had been contributing to National Health Insurance


since 1912. In 1930 many of them found themselves unemployed, and many of them had never been accustomed either to short time or to unemployment, and did not like the idea of signing on at the Employment Exchanges. The result was that hundreds of them, rather than sign on at the Exchanges or go on to public assistance, put their life savings into businesses in order to try and manage in that way. They were hoping against hope. It was impossible to build up a business during that period, and owing to their having their whole attention concentrated on their economic difficulties, many of them did not pay attention to becoming voluntary contributors so as to enable them to maintain their pension rights, which they would have done had they not been overwhelmed with their economic difficulties. Many of these men have since passed away, and their widows now find themselves, owing to not having 104 stamps on their cards in the two years prior to the death of their husbands, not qualified for the widow's pension despite the fact that hundreds of them have been paying into National Health Insurance since 1912.
I had a letter on Friday morning, brought to our house from a well-known supporter of the Government, a man whose life is now a tragedy because of the position in which he finds himself. This reminds me of the time in 1929 when the Labour Government much against the desires of thousands of us, introduced the Anomalies Act. Those of us who were familiar with the conditions in industrial centres at that time were bound to be indignant about that Act and the way in which it has been administered since. If it was right for the Labour Government, under pressure from the other side, to introduce that Anomalies Act to deal with the situation that was prevailing then, it is reasonable to suggest that, after the period through which we have passed, the Government should investigate the question so that they also can consider introducing an anomalies Act to deal with the many anomalies that have arisen out of our experience since 1929. I want to read an extract from a letter which has been sent to me from an old friend of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It was sent to me because the writer

knew I have been taking an interest in this question. The writer says:
I should like you to take my case and also on behalf of a few more in these homes. I am 60 years of age. I have been a worker all my life until six months ago when I had to give it up. On the 24th June I came to these homes which are supported by voluntary contributors. I was told I must give up my pension book as it had to go to the Pensions Ministry. When it came back to me, instead of 10s. a week, it was an order for 4s. a week. When I went into this home I wanted to try and help my wife. She does not get any old age pension as she is only 63. She has only 7s. 2d. a week to keep the home, which she has to do as my eldest son was killed in France in 1917.
That is typical of the tragedies in life of thousands of people in this country. One could go on and deal with one's experience of many of these old men and women who are similarly placed, but one has only time to mention them on the Adjournment. We must be satisfied with mentioning the cases to the Under-Secretary in the hope that he will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to them, so that he can consider the advisability of investigating the anomalies.

11.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has raised a case, which I have no doubt will be referred to as a hard case such as must arise and which the Ministry has no power to redress under the rules and regulations. May I call attention to the way in which a hard case in another walk of life is dealt with in regard to widows? This case happens frequently. The son of a peer dies, and his death is followed shortly afterwards by that of his father. In a certain circle it is felt to be an extremely hard case and bad luck to the son's widow and his sons and daughters that he did not live long enough for her to be able to enjoy the tremendous privilege of being called Lady So-and-so and the sons and daughters being called the Honourable So-and-so. It is of course very hard luck indeed that they should be deprived of such a great privilege and such a great pride and pleasure; and subsequently, one notices in the "London Gazette" that the Sovereign has been pleased to decree that the widow and sons and daughters of this son shall be entitled to the same style and privileges as if the son had lived to


enjoy the great privilege of being raised to the peerage.
That is a hard case and that is how it is dealt with in one walk of life, because we know that such is the foolishness and gullibility of mankind in certain walks of life that these titles are social assets which enable the widow, and the sons and daughters to make far better marriages than they would otherwise have been able to do.
In the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, if a working man, through receiving an injury in the course of his work, fails by seven stamps to complete the necessary 104 stamps, that is a reason for depriving his widow of a pension, and that is referred to by the Ministry of Health as a hard case which the rules and regulations prevent the Ministry from meeting, although they admit that it is a hard case. I hope that the Under-Secretary when he replies will take note of the differing manner in which hard cases in two differing walks of life are met, and that that will induce him to agree to the request of my hon. Friend that this matter shall be made the subject of an inquiry.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: This is an insurance scheme. In ordinary circumstances a man who has paid the first premium on his insurance policy comes at once into benefit. We on this side of the House believe that no insurance scheme will be a proper one until it provides for payments after the first premium has been paid. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) referred to those widows whose husbands died before 1926, when no premiums had been paid. The husband need have been in an insurable occupation for only a few weeks—not 104 weeks— and need have no stamps on, and yet the widow was entitled to a pension. We do not object to that, but are glad that those widows are well cared for. Then there is the case of the wife who is not 65. We find an old man of 64 drawing unemployment benefit of 26s. a week for himself and his wife. At the age of 65 the unemployment benefit stops, and if his wife is not 65 they have only 10s. a week to keep the pair of them. They have to go to the public assistance authorities to get the money supplemented, so that they can live at all.

They are the worthiest people in the nation, who have spent a lifetime in industry, and they are worthy of something better. Members on all sides of the House receive letters pointing out these anomalies and hardships. Some of the letters are heart-rending, and some of them point out justifiably that the House has recently passed a measure to increase Ministers' salaries and passed a resolution to increase the salaries of Members. We are told in these letters, and also in the Press, that Members are looking after themselves but that the widows and orphans are being sadly neglected, and that it would have been far better had we attended to the widows first and left the Members' salaries alone. I should be glad to hear from the Government that they will take this matter into consideration. It is crying out for reform. There are not only one or two cases, they are nation-wide, and I believe the nation would be behind anything that was done to increase these pensions for widows.

11.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be very sorry that he was unable to be present to-night but he had a long-standing engagement in Birmingham. Many questions have been raised that would require legislation and with which I am not permitted by the Rules of the House to deal. Individual cases have also been raised, and I know that the House realises that I could not reply on those specific cases on the spur of the moment; I should want to know all the facts of the case. A strong plea has been made for an inquiry into the working of the Acts concerned; I can say at the present moment only that the attention of my right hon. Friend will be drawn to the very strong plea that has been made.
The matter that was the subject of the Adjournment Motion was a comparatively narrow one, and with that I will now deal. The question raised by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) had reference to the rejection of the appeal made by one of his constituents, a Mrs. Winter, against the decision of my right hon. Friend that she was not entitled to a widow's pension. My right hon. Friend was acting only within the


provisions of the Acts, and I think the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension when he seemed to suggest that my right hon. Friend could make a decision contrary to the provisions of those Acts. He can of course alter a decision which has been come to by the referee only in the light of new facts. The contributory conditions for the award of a widow's pension were not satisfied in the case of Mrs. Winter; they relate, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, to the payment of 104 contributions. At the time of the death of Mr. Winter, only 84 contributions had been paid. I recognise that there were peculiar difficulties in this case. The husband was incapacitated by an injury to his spine, caused, I think, in a mine, and this House is always sympathetic to the victims of mining accidents.
It is specifically laid down in such cases that while there is no liability for the payment of contributions during incapacity, it is always open to the insured person to pay up the contributions. Mr. Winter could have made the necessary payments, right up to the day of his death.

Mr. Batey: He did not know.

Mr. Bernays: I realise that he did not know, but it is the onus of the insured person to know these things. I think he was constantly visited by an official under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and Mr. Winter had only to ask him and he would have informed him either of the position or would have told him to write to the Ministry of Health. In the Ministry of Health we have frequently asked the approved societies to make known to contributors the conditions to which they have to conform. Of course, if he had paid up these back contributions, Mrs. Winter would have been entitled to a widow's pension, but in fact he did not.

Sir Hugh Seely: It is said that he could have asked, but was it pointed out to him?

Mr. Bernays: There was no statutory obligation that it should be pointed out, and my right hon. Friend, under the terms of the Act which it is his duty to administer, could only decide that Mrs. Winter is not entitled to a widow's pension. This decision was upheld by the referees, and is by law final and conclusive. Several interesting points have been raised in connection with the Minister's decision. The

hon. Member for Spennymoor asked whether the case ought not to have been decided, not under the Act of 1925, but under the Act of 1929, under which, he says, widows whose husbands made no payment at all were awarded pensions. I think that in saying that he is under a misapprehension of the provisions of the Act of 1929. That Act could only have applied if the husband had died or had attained the age of 70 before 4th January, 1926.

Mr. Batey: The man was dead, so far as regards being able to walk and get stamps, in 1914.

Mr. Bernays: I am afraid he was not dead within the terms of the Act. Neither. of these requirements was fulfilled in the case of the late Mr. Winter. I was further asked, why cannot contributions be accepted after the death of the insured person? That at first sight seems plausible, but it is laid down specifically in Section 5 (2) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, that, in determining whether the statutory conditions have been complied with, no account shall be taken of contributions paid after the date of the death of the person in respect of whose insurance a pension is claimed. The Act is very clear on that point, and so is the reason for it. There is no technicality of the kind alleged by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). The reason is really perfectly simple. If the acceptance of stamp contributions after death were allowed, they would only be made where the payment was necessary to establish a title to pension.

Mr. V. Adams: The Minister completely misapprehends this case; 104 contributions paid during the lifetime of the deceased man.

Mr. Bernays: I am not discussing the particular case which the hon. Member put before me; I am discussing his general charge that it is only some unimportant technicalities that stand in the way of granting a pension in this case.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As I understand the law, it is an obligation upon an employer who employs a workman to pay the contributions and deduct them from his wages. When a man meets with an accident, it does not terminate his employ-


ment. A legal decision has been given on that point. When a man receives an accident, he is still in the employ of his employers until they give notice to terminate the employment in accordance with the agreement that he works under. In the South Wales coalfield the companies, in order to make arrangements to avoid the consequences of another decision, follow the practice of sending a 14-days notice to the house of the man after the accident. If a colliery company, after an accident, did not give notice to terminate the employment, he is still their employé.

Mr. Bernays: I will certainly look into the point, but I think as I develop my argument the hon. Member will see that I shall deal with it. I was arguing that if cash contributions could be allowed after the death of a man it would mean that payment would only be made when there was an attempt to establish a title to pension. Supposing a fire insurance premium had not been paid for 12 years, I do not think hon. Members would suggest that at the end of that time, if the house was burned down they should be able to claim the fire insurance merely by paying up the back premiums. An exception to that rule has already been made where the failure to pay contributions has been on the part of an employer who was under a legal liability to pay them. In such a case the contributions can be collected after the death of the insured person and such of them as were due within a limited period before death, rank as though they had been paid at the proper time.

Mr. Kelly: What is that limited period?

Mr. Bernays: I do not know. This exception, however, does not extend to contributions which were not compulsorily payable but which the insured person had

a right to pay. The hon. Member then demanded that there should be a removal from the contributory scheme of the 104 stamps qualification and that we should substitute that the husband had been engaged in an insurable trade. But in fact it is difficult to see how the test suggested by the hon. Member would not itself prove to be a contribution test. Obviously the benefits under the insurance scheme must be dependent on the participation of the insured person in insurance. It would scarcely be possible to accept the normally uninsured person as insured merely because he occasionally went into an insured trade. Some sort of definition would have to be laid down and insurance tested by reference to it. It is almost inevitable that some formula would result, and the only measurable factor seems to be the number of contributions paid.

Mr. S. O. Davies: You have the definition under unemployment insurance.

Mr. Bernays: I am dealing as far as time permits with the particular case raised by the hon. Member. I admit that it is part of the provision in the act that the contributor's right to pay contributions belongs only to him and dies with him, but this is after all applied in every similar scheme. For these reasons my right hon. Friend finds that he has no power under the existing acts to alter the decision he has made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister look at the point I have raised?

Mr. Bernays: I shall certainly do so.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.